From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LQ08l-00045O-2k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:02:39 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1LQ08h-00044k-Sf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:02:37 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=36761 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LQ08h-00044U-H2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:02:35 -0500 Received: from mail-qy0-f20.google.com ([209.85.221.20]:33200) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1LQ08g-0006zC-T6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 09:02:35 -0500 Received: by qyk13 with SMTP id 13so6503954qyk.10 for ; Thu, 22 Jan 2009 06:02:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <200901220011.18142.paul@codesourcery.com> References: <1232477465-32386-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <20090121114626.GA628@poweredge.glommer> <18807.22653.889113.401463@mariner.uk.xensource.com> <200901220011.18142.paul@codesourcery.com> Date: Thu, 22 Jan 2009 12:02:33 -0200 Message-ID: <5d6222a80901220602t6eb05c64p2e5c85d5d635150e@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] Bypass tcg memory functions -v1.0-2009 From: Glauber Costa Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, Ian Jackson On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 10:11 PM, Paul Brook wrote: > I don't see a reason why these need to be different. They're all doing > basically the same thing. The low level implementation details ara a bit > different, but in principle kvm, xen and tcg all need to to exactly the same > thing: Figure out what a particular physical address is mapped to. I'll try to work something out today. I agree that if we do can have something similar, let's have it. However, as anthony poses it, we'll differ _somewhere_, and the whole question is where to hook. In a level lower than that, we can probably share more code, true, but we'll end up with an API that means a lot less, and much more difficult to get right. The idea of sharing I have in mind right now is close to what I did wrt to io handling. -- Glauber Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."