On Mon, May 14, 2012 at 07:42:00PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> On 05/09/2012 11:48 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt wrote:
> >From: David Gibson<da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
[snip]
> >@@ -3581,6 +3581,59 @@ void cpu_physical_memory_rw(target_phys_addr_t addr,
> >uint8_t *buf,
> > }
> > }
> >
> >+void cpu_physical_memory_zero(target_phys_addr_t addr, int len)
> >+{
>
> I'd think a memset() like interface would be better but...
I can work with that.
> We should definitely implement this function in terms of
> cpu_physical_memory_write instead of open coding the logic again.
Hrm. Having solved merge conflicts several times by recopying the
cpu_physical_memory_rw() logic, I can certainly see the attraction in
that. However, the point of this function is *not* to have to
allocate a temporary buffer, and I don't really see how to combine the
logic without that.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
