On 07/24/2011 06:28 AM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 07/23/2011 02:17 PM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson<r...@twiddle.net>
>
> Why?
So that I can write i/o functions like this:
switch (addr) {
case 0: ...
case 64: ...
case 128: ...
...
default:
unassigned_mem_readl(...)
}
Perhaps Avi's rewrite makes this unnecessary; I browsed through
his patch set but didn't immediately see if there's a way for
the i/o function to return "failure".
What I certainly don't want to do is write this with 100 tiny
functions registering 8 bytes each, registered some tiny
distance away from each other.
r~
