From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1I8NJE-00018T-P5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:31:48 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1I8NJD-00016Z-T5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:31:48 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I8NJD-00016I-LQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:31:47 -0400
Received: from owa.c2.net ([207.235.78.2] helo=email.c2.net)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <Anderson@C2.NET>) id 1I8NJD-0007gK-80
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:31:47 -0400
Date: Tue, 10 Jul 2007 17:09:20 -0400 (EDT)
From: Stuart Anderson <anderson@c2.net>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] linux-user EFAULT implementation
In-Reply-To: <4693EFDC.3080604@bellard.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707101702540.28322@trantor.stuart.netsweng.com>
References: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0707061111150.12799@trantor.stuart.netsweng.com>
	<4692A55D.5050102@bellard.org>
	<Pine.LNX.4.64.0707092218270.12799@trantor.stuart.netsweng.com>
	<200707101338.44885.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<4693EFDC.3080604@bellard.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
Reply-To: anderson@c2.net, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Fabrice Bellard wrote:

> I confirm that I expected g2h() to be completely removed in case the Linux 
> user access API is used.

I agree too that it should not be used. I'm testing ARM on x86_64, and
used it in a few places to clean up some warnings. The real fix is to
change what I was doing to not need this asignment anyway. I will take
another look at how to bury this part in the copy* interfaces.

Would it be OK to use g2h() inside the implementation of copy* ?

> Since you agree for the copying interface, I suggest to convert all the code 
> to it.

OK, I'll continue in this direction, after taking a fresh look at what I
did yesterday.

Thanks for the feedback.


                                 Stuart

Stuart R. Anderson                               anderson@c2.net
Solutions Architect                              http://www.c2.net/
1024D/37A79149:                                  0791 D3B8 9A4C 2CDC A31F
                                                  BD03 0A62 E534 37A7 9149