On Fri, Nov 06, 2015 at 01:41:54PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 6 November 2015 at 13:27, Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 06:15:45PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> Add an argument to tlb_set_page_with_attrs which allows the target CPU code > >> to tell the core code which AddressSpace to use. > >> > >> The AddressSpace is specified by the index into the array of ASes which > >> were registered with cpu_address_space_init(). > > >> --- a/exec.c > >> +++ b/exec.c > >> @@ -445,12 +445,13 @@ MemoryRegion *address_space_translate(AddressSpace > >> *as, hwaddr addr, > >> > >> /* Called from RCU critical section */ > >> MemoryRegionSection * > >> -address_space_translate_for_iotlb(CPUState *cpu, hwaddr addr, > >> +address_space_translate_for_iotlb(CPUState *cpu, int asidx, hwaddr addr, > >> hwaddr *xlat, hwaddr *plen) > > > > Does it make sense to replace the CPUState argument with an AddressSpace * > > and have the callers do the cpu->cpu_ases[asidx]? > > It would be more consistent and eventually maybe eliminate the need for > > address_space_translate_for_iotlb in favor of calling > > address_space_translate > > directly? > > We can't accept an arbitrary AddressSpace, it has to be one which is > embedded in a CPUAddressSpace and which we can thus find the > memory_dispatch for. So you could pass a CPUAddressSpace*, but not > an AddressSpace*. But to pass a CPUAddressSpace we would have to > expose the currently-private-to-exec.c layout of the CPUAddressSpace > struct. I chose not to do that (and you can see the results elsewhere > in the patch series, like the function that's basically just "do > the cs_ases array lookup for me"); there's an argument for making > the structure more widely available to avoid some of that.
Aha, I see.. Thanks for clarifying. Cheers, Edgar
