On Tue, Sep 27, 2016 at 8:40 AM, Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> wrote: > Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes: > >> It does whatever cpu_physical_memory_write_rom (and hence >> cpu_memory_rw_debug, which has more callers) do. >> >>> What happens when you try to monkey-patch and address that isn't >>> connected to anything? >> >> /dev/null >> >>> What happens when you try to monkey-patch some device's ROM? >> >> Overwritten. >> >>> Memory-mapped I/O? >> >> Ignored. >> >>> What happens when you monkey-patch persistent memory, such as pflash >>> backed by a block backend? >> >> Overwritten (but not flushed). >> >>> What happens if the address range crosses device boundaries? >> >> Writes over each area separately. > > Rejecting the ones that don't actually load stuff would be nice, but not > a condition for merging this. > >>> >> If we decide to use this argument for the present interface design, I >>> >> want it recorded in the code and commit messages. >>> >>> Fair request, don't you think? >> >> Yes, of course. > > Okay, looking forward to these improvements.
Ok, so does this mean with the correct justification that Markus mentions above this is fine to keep using -device? The justification is along the lines of the backend required is so trivial that we just merged it in with the frontend. Thanks, Alistair > > Thanks! >
