On 09/11/2012 10:51 AM, Liu Ping Fan wrote:
> From: Liu Ping Fan <pingf...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
>
> With this, e1000 show to memory core that it can be protected by
> refcnt.
>
> diff --git a/hw/e1000.c b/hw/e1000.c
> index ae8a6c5..df3a349 100644
> --- a/hw/e1000.c
> +++ b/hw/e1000.c
> @@ -1037,9 +1037,26 @@ e1000_mmio_read(void *opaque, target_phys_addr_t addr,
> unsigned size)
> return 0;
> }
>
> +static int e1000_mmio_ref(MemoryRegion *mr)
> +{
> + E1000State *e1000 = container_of(mr, E1000State, mmio);
> +
> + object_ref(OBJECT(e1000));
> + return 1;
> +}
> +
> +static void e1000_mmio_unref(MemoryRegion *mr)
> +{
> + E1000State *e1000 = container_of(mr, E1000State, mmio);
> +
> + object_unref(OBJECT(e1000));
> +}
> +
> static const MemoryRegionOps e1000_mmio_ops = {
> .read = e1000_mmio_read,
> .write = e1000_mmio_write,
> + .ref = e1000_mmio_ref,
> + .unref = e1000_mmio_unref,
> .endianness = DEVICE_LITTLE_ENDIAN,
> .impl = {
> .min_access_size = 4,
>
Does e1000_mmio_write() never call functions that assume bql protection?
The network layer, timers, and qemu_irq all need protection.
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
