From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-7.1 required=3.0 tests=BAYES_00,DKIM_INVALID, DKIM_SIGNED,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS,USER_AGENT_SANE_1 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4F24AC4338F for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 19:05:29 +0000 (UTC) Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0DAB1613CF for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 19:05:29 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.4.1 mail.kernel.org 0DAB1613CF Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=fail (p=none dis=none) header.from=redhat.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:42104 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mIFGC-0000qc-5B for qemu-devel@archiver.kernel.org; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:05:28 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:49442) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mIFFC-00084Q-H5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:04:26 -0400 Received: from us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com ([216.205.24.124]:36268) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1mIFF9-0001ok-U3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:04:26 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=redhat.com; s=mimecast20190719; t=1629745463; h=from:from:reply-to:subject:subject:date:date:message-id:message-id: to:to:cc:cc:mime-version:mime-version:content-type:content-type: content-transfer-encoding:content-transfer-encoding: in-reply-to:in-reply-to:references:references; bh=s6azossO70ZeKGdG3ddTZqMsgn9VE+bvA2VK/PPLQXg=; b=gaE74BzMQjnbgJp87JKPoQfwO4x5J1+xjZo+ouk1ofUWF5mAJSJ5hm8EEWCXhWNabz7mUz 07F601Vckr1ZCgy62PU5Oidz847gtc5kvlXcBxQOwPMeV85RsHQPFbE9z8fvLPScqaOwFV TnIQhSGW/bM+dPP+nxjL18dBc7Gepi0= Received: from mail-wm1-f69.google.com (mail-wm1-f69.google.com [209.85.128.69]) (Using TLS) by relay.mimecast.com with ESMTP id us-mta-463-A2W9QPyiNxecHyfKmASGjw-1; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 15:04:22 -0400 X-MC-Unique: A2W9QPyiNxecHyfKmASGjw-1 Received: by mail-wm1-f69.google.com with SMTP id i204-20020a1c22d5000000b002e74466ad9bso82524wmi.4 for ; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:04:21 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:organization :message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to :content-language:content-transfer-encoding; bh=s6azossO70ZeKGdG3ddTZqMsgn9VE+bvA2VK/PPLQXg=; b=nPnD2y+zkCGnbDgdOfZgeMvJNEm67BUPFWAe53HBQc2nN/OniUG2QSx3zqm1RVvdc/ FmePIn67iKgvvXH9lHXGuZI8h3OHgNIC7V3q7tr5DIvFLin8RmnfU2btbTXSF+TdrBDE 0badFtZGNN3N14E+YOAUEkGm0nvvYQxrVj5FQQhE2uVx/x3Tr6wmMwwPjzhQ7nRgsS2L CFicJtbErmXNDYM/2+l/kcUG4tafqKxanXVkNOO20jJCmiHTo/DzXHBOwBlgncOc1dZc gTTP0SSJsUQTMjUybf3yj1V+fW8270lhjZiQRkO51Qlk1RAAuDzFBu/Jm9Z3XtiUv/YK jvjw== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533LVMLF/92YMWXg2si4Rc2woKRO84VCO+7T2oac2uy3KL0xRqbf boG469SlEQmL3Hn13w4P72TH0ebH05/CwyzTRNMN+NMhOiHXzb1TmRpgugjoK2skz/+cA3DCA/U YDvh3x9jFskm6oGc= X-Received: by 2002:adf:fbc9:: with SMTP id d9mr15188508wrs.152.1629745460852; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:04:20 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwDvPPMwkRhzZDEh2IJyo9sYy/vQfXCNCS8BQBZU8cPsOs4PL2sAAI6c/emzQWANfvKy/SCvw== X-Received: by 2002:adf:fbc9:: with SMTP id d9mr15188484wrs.152.1629745460711; Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Received: from [192.168.3.132] (p5b0c60c6.dip0.t-ipconnect.de. [91.12.96.198]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id z13sm15969870wrs.71.2021.08.23.12.04.19 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Mon, 23 Aug 2021 12:04:20 -0700 (PDT) Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v2 3/5] exec/memattrs: Introduce MemTxAttrs::bus_perm field To: Peter Xu , =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= References: <20210823164157.751807-1-philmd@redhat.com> <20210823164157.751807-4-philmd@redhat.com> From: David Hildenbrand Organization: Red Hat Message-ID: <922195af-f70d-eaf6-2aa4-b924f8196076@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 23 Aug 2021 21:04:19 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.11.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Authentication-Results: relay.mimecast.com; auth=pass smtp.auth=CUSA124A263 smtp.mailfrom=david@redhat.com X-Mimecast-Spam-Score: 0 X-Mimecast-Originator: redhat.com Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Received-SPF: pass client-ip=216.205.24.124; envelope-from=david@redhat.com; helo=us-smtp-delivery-124.mimecast.com X-Spam_score_int: -55 X-Spam_score: -5.6 X-Spam_bar: ----- X-Spam_report: (-5.6 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.743, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, NICE_REPLY_A=-2.023, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H2=-0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.23 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Cc: Peter Maydell , Jason Wang , Li Qiang , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Qiuhao Li , Alexander Bulekov , qemu-arm@nongnu.org, Gerd Hoffmann , Stefan Hajnoczi , Paolo Bonzini , "Edgar E . Iglesias" Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: "Qemu-devel" On 23.08.21 20:41, Peter Xu wrote: > On Mon, Aug 23, 2021 at 06:41:55PM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >> +/* Permission to restrict bus memory accesses. See MemTxAttrs::bus_perm */ >> +enum { >> + MEMTXPERM_UNSPECIFIED = 0, >> + MEMTXPERM_UNRESTRICTED = 1, >> + MEMTXPERM_RAM_DEVICE = 2, >> +}; > > Is there a difference between UNSPECIFIED and UNRESTRICTED? > > If no, should we merge them? > I'd assume MEMTXPERM_UNSPECIFIED has to be treated like MEMTXPERM_UNRESTRICTED, so I'd also think we should just squash them. -- Thanks, David / dhildenb