On 27/03/2015 17:21, Jan Beulich wrote: > Hello, > > I'm trying to understand what the idea behind these is. For one, > without .valid.accepts set I can't see the two respective .valid > fields take effect at all. Yet all examples I looked at don't set > .valid.accepts. What's the deal here?
The examples you see of .valid.min_access_size/max_access_size could indeed be removed. Most of the time, whether an access is valid == whether the access is naturally aligned. .valid.min_access_size/.valid.max_access_size is really the access size expected by .valid.accepts. > And then the way access_with_adjusted_size() works, it looks to > me as if with .impl.min_access_size set to greater than 1 > unaligned accesses could still reach the actual read or write > handler, as only the access size would get bumped, but no > adjustment be made to the address. I don't understand what you mean exactly. Do you have an example? Paolo
