On 08/29/2013 04:29 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > Il 29/08/2013 04:26, Alexey Kardashevskiy ha scritto: >> >> Right. I was planning to add my IOMMU stuff right before calculating @end. > > But then the non-IOMMU stuff can just use int128_get64, no? So even if > this patch simply uses int128_get64, it is still a suitable basis for > adding IOMMU stuff.
Suitable but ugly. What if before calling int128_get64, I test section->size if it is <2^64 and only then do RAM part of this function? > > Paolo > >> >>>> This patch is not maintainable. We're seemingly >>>> calculating the same value twice with no comment as to why. A hwaddr >>>> type end should be calculated from the Int128 rather than paying >>>> attention to rollover in one place but not another. Thanks, >> Yes, not maintainable... I guess I just have to convert @end to 128 bit as >> well to have things consistent. > -- Alexey
