On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 12:04:49PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 27 August 2015 at 11:53, Michael S. Tsirkin <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2015 at 11:49:32AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> But *why* does it require the size to be zero? I still think > >> the caller should just avoid trying to do zero-size memory > >> operations: they don't make sense. What is a zero size > >> operation supposed to mean? > > > This just mirrors an API we have in kvm: if you pass 0 > > size when registering an ioeventfd, it will match on access > > of any size. > > Hrm. It feels to me like the memory APIs ought to filter > out bad access sizes at an earlier stage, rather than > trying to make them work all the way through. > > -- PMM
Why do you mention APIs? It's all internal to memory.c, isn't it? -- MST
