Il 03/06/2013 08:40, Paolo Bonzini ha scritto: > Il 02/06/2013 18:04, Peter Maydell ha scritto: >> On 2 June 2013 16:43, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >>> -int qemu_ram_addr_from_host(void *ptr, ram_addr_t *ram_addr); >>> +MemoryRegion *qemu_ram_addr_from_host(void *ptr, ram_addr_t *ram_addr); >>> ram_addr_t qemu_ram_addr_from_host_nofail(void *ptr); >> >> This is weird, because now the _nofail and the standard >> versions of this function return different things.
Ah, actually that's not a change. The function used to return 0/-1 and place the address in a by-reference argument. It's a somewhat weird decision made when the normal and _nofail version were split (commit e890261, Export qemu_ram_addr_from_host, 2010-10-11). Returning -1 to indicate failure would have been ok, since it's not a valid ram_addr_t. >> Why wouldn't a caller of the _nofail version potentially >> need the MemoryRegion* too? Because there are just a handful of calls, and all of them are in cputlb.c which is not very much MemoryRegion-aware. I'll just move it there and make it static. The right fix here would be to make all the MCE handling code not KVM-specific. Then it can be in exec.c and ram_addr_t can be private (eliminating a good deal of confusion between it and hwaddr). Paolo
