On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 08:56:43AM -0400, Gregory Haskins wrote: > Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 03:27:49PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > > > >> On 07/07/2009 03:22 PM, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > >> > >>> On Tue, Jul 07, 2009 at 02:53:18PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>>>> + /* address-range must be precise for a hit */ > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>> So there's apparently no way to specify that > >>>>> you want 1,2, or 4 byte writes at address X? > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>> Why would you want that? > >>>> > >>>> > >>> Donnu. Why would anyone want to catch 8 byte writes at all? > >>> > >>> > >> One of the natural write sizes. > >> > >> > >>> Seriously, why add artificial limitations? > >>> IMO, addr=0,len=1 and addr=0,len=2 should not conflict. > >>> > >>> > >>> > >> They should not conflict, but a two byte write need not hit a one byte > >> registration. > >> > > > > Yes. That's exactly what I'm saying. I think it should be possible to > > create 2 fds: > > > > addr = 0 > > len = 1 > > addr = 0 > > len = 2 > > and at most one will ever trigger. > > > > But current code will not let you create the second one. > > > > > Note that this was by design to keep the code simple since we don't have > a (known) use case for overlap. At the very least, you have to address > how data subsets are handled. But do we really need that functionality? > > -Greg > Hey, forget about overlap. Overlap does not exist as a concept. You now spend a lot of effort to detect it. Kill all that code, and just do this on assignment: list_for_each(...) if (rhs->add == lhs->addr && rhs->len == lhs->len && (rhs->wildcard || lhs->wildcard || rhs->data == lhs->data)) return -EEXIST; -- MST -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
