From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JA7RW-0007ly-ED for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:31:50 -0500 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1JA7RU-0007lC-Ah for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:31:50 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JA7RU-0007l9-80 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:31:48 -0500 Received: from mu-out-0910.google.com ([209.85.134.190]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1JA7RT-00019V-Ke for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 12:31:47 -0500 Received: by mu-out-0910.google.com with SMTP id w8so3679315mue.4 for ; Wed, 02 Jan 2008 09:31:43 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Wed, 2 Jan 2008 19:31:43 +0200 From: "Blue Swirl" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu cpu-all.h exec.c In-Reply-To: <200801021718.06316.paul@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <477AB3D4.5080106@bellard.org> <200801021718.06316.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paul Brook Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 1/2/08, Paul Brook wrote: > > Also the opaque parameter may need to be different for each function, > > it just didn't matter for the unassigned memory case. > > Do you really have systems where independent devices need to respond to > different sized accesses to the same address? I don't think so. But one day unassigned or even normal RAM memory access may need an opaque parameter, so passing the device's opaque to unassigned memory handler is wrong.