On 24 March 2015 at 16:23, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >> On 24 March 2015 at 15:08, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >> > On 24/03/2015 15:53, Peter Maydell wrote: >> >>> > In any case, the removal or segregation of ld/st*_phys should be a >> >>> > separate series for ease of review. >> >> Who wants to remove ld/st*_phys? Not me... >> > >> > Well, you want to rename them _and_ add new arguments. Basically at the >> > end they don't exist anymore as we know them now. :) >> >> I guess :-) So what exactly would you like to see as a >> separate series? > > Adding the arguments / renaming the functions
OK. (This will need the patch that actually at least defines the MemTxAttr and MemTxResult types, obviously.) >, for those callers > of ld/st*_phys that use cs->as as the first argument. ...but I don't understand this caveat. I want to add arguments and rename the functions for *all* callers of ld/st*_phys. I don't want to specialcase the ones which happen to be operating on cs->as. -- PMM