On Fri, Sep 25, 2015 at 02:04:14PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > > > On 25/09/2015 13:33, David Gibson wrote: > > 1) Is there a case where using the no-replay functions makes > > sense? > > > > I'm not sure. I think vfio is the only user so far, so I guess > > that's technically a no. I was reluctant to change the interface > > and semantics just off the bat, though. > > Considering memory_region_listener does the reply, I think it's > okay.
Uh.. just to be clear, are you saying I should change this so there's
only the replaying interface?
> For solving the problem that Laurent mentioned, using int128 seems
> like the easiest solution...
Maybe. It means I have to do all the address calculation in the loop
with an int128, then truncate it to do the actual call. That seems
harder to me than the overflow check I added, but I suppose it's
conceptually similar in some ways.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
pgpieTFndg92n.pgp
Description: PGP signature
