Avi Kivity wrote: > On 04/25/2010 05:51 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> Avi Kivity wrote: >> >>> On 04/25/2010 05:29 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> >>>> >>>>> There isn't. But I don't like hidden breakage. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> It's (so far) an unproblematic API property we can document. I don't >>>> like changing APIs just for "there might be the case that...". >>>> >>>> >>> I guess it's one of those agree to disagree things. I dislike known >>> broken APIs even if their none of their users are affected. >>> >> The API is not broken. I intentionally designed it for the single user >> as I saw no need for more. If I oversaw something, I would really like >> to learn about these cases. >> > > The fact that the API assumes a single user is what's broken IMO. > > If the API were to take a memory slot as parameter you could say it is > the responsibility of the slot's owner to multiplex (and since vga has a > single owner, no need to multiplex). But it takes a range. No, the API accepts only a single slot. If you try passing bogus ranges that span multiple or incomplete slots, you get what you deserve - a bug message. Jan
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
