[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] MemoryRegionOps' {min,max}_access_size fields
From: |
Paolo Bonzini |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] MemoryRegionOps' {min,max}_access_size fields |
Date: |
Mon, 30 Mar 2015 11:49:40 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0 |
On 27/03/2015 17:21, Jan Beulich wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I'm trying to understand what the idea behind these is. For one,
> without .valid.accepts set I can't see the two respective .valid
> fields take effect at all. Yet all examples I looked at don't set
> .valid.accepts. What's the deal here?
The examples you see of .valid.min_access_size/max_access_size could
indeed be removed. Most of the time, whether an access is valid ==
whether the access is naturally aligned.
.valid.min_access_size/.valid.max_access_size is really the access size
expected by .valid.accepts.
> And then the way access_with_adjusted_size() works, it looks to
> me as if with .impl.min_access_size set to greater than 1
> unaligned accesses could still reach the actual read or write
> handler, as only the access size would get bumped, but no
> adjustment be made to the address.
I don't understand what you mean exactly. Do you have an example?
Paolo