Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > 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; > > I like it. Will do for v10. Thanks Michael, -Greg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
