On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 23 June 2011 18:56, Stefano Stabellini
> wrote:
> > Thanks for the detailed explanation of the problem, I think I understand
> > what I have to do to fix.
> > However I would like to have a repro of the bug before sending any
> > patches, so that I am
On Thu, 23 Jun 2011, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 19 June 2011 04:39, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > From: Stefano Stabellini
> >
> > Introduce qemu_ram_ptr_length that takes an address and a size as
> > parameters rather than just an address.
> >
> > Refactor cpu_physical_memory_map so that we call qemu
On 19 June 2011 04:39, Alexander Graf wrote:
> From: Stefano Stabellini
>
> Introduce qemu_ram_ptr_length that takes an address and a size as
> parameters rather than just an address.
>
> Refactor cpu_physical_memory_map so that we call qemu_ram_ptr_length only
> once rather than calling qemu_get
On 23 June 2011 18:56, Stefano Stabellini
wrote:
> Thanks for the detailed explanation of the problem, I think I understand
> what I have to do to fix.
> However I would like to have a repro of the bug before sending any
> patches, so that I am sure that the solution works correctly.
> However I a
From: Stefano Stabellini
Introduce qemu_ram_ptr_length that takes an address and a size as
parameters rather than just an address.
Refactor cpu_physical_memory_map so that we call qemu_ram_ptr_length only
once rather than calling qemu_get_ram_ptr one time per page.
This is not only more efficien
