>-----Original Message-----
>From: Peter Xu <pet...@redhat.com>
>Sent: Wednesday, February 15, 2023 1:29 AM
>To: Duan, Zhenzhong <zhenzhong.d...@intel.com>
>Cc: Jason Wang <jasow...@redhat.com>; qemu-devel@nongnu.org;
>m...@redhat.com; pbonz...@redhat.com; richard.hender...@linaro.org;
>edua...@habkost.net; marcel.apfelb...@gmail.com; da...@redhat.com;
>phi...@linaro.org
>Subject: Re: [PATCH] memory: Optimize replay of guest mapping
>
>On Tue, Feb 14, 2023 at 07:04:56AM +0000, Duan, Zhenzhong wrote:
>> >> @@ -1936,7 +1935,7 @@ void
>> >> memory_region_iommu_replay(IOMMUMemoryRegion *iommu_mr,
>> >IOMMUNotifier
>> >> *n)
>> >>
>> >> granularity = memory_region_iommu_get_min_page_size(iommu_mr);
>> >>
>> >> - for (addr = 0; addr < memory_region_size(mr); addr += granularity) {
>> >> + for (addr = n->start; addr < n->end; addr += granularity) {
>> >
>> >Is [n->start, n->end] guaranteed to be the subset of
>memory_region_size(mr)?
>>
>> In current implementation it is.
>> [n->start, n->end] of notifier is derived from iommu memory region's
>> section which is a subset of iommu memory region itself.
>
>Yes, currently it seems to be guaranteed by the callers assuming they're
>always doing the right thing.
>
>Maybe it'll worth it to have memory_region_register_iommu_notifier() assert
>properly to make sure it always hold true?
Yea, good suggestion, will do in v2.
Thanks
Zhenzhong
