On 6 November 2015 at 13:27, Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.igles...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thu, Nov 05, 2015 at 06:15:45PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> Add an argument to tlb_set_page_with_attrs which allows the target CPU code >> to tell the core code which AddressSpace to use. >> >> The AddressSpace is specified by the index into the array of ASes which >> were registered with cpu_address_space_init().
>> --- a/exec.c >> +++ b/exec.c >> @@ -445,12 +445,13 @@ MemoryRegion *address_space_translate(AddressSpace >> *as, hwaddr addr, >> >> /* Called from RCU critical section */ >> MemoryRegionSection * >> -address_space_translate_for_iotlb(CPUState *cpu, hwaddr addr, >> +address_space_translate_for_iotlb(CPUState *cpu, int asidx, hwaddr addr, >> hwaddr *xlat, hwaddr *plen) > > Does it make sense to replace the CPUState argument with an AddressSpace * > and have the callers do the cpu->cpu_ases[asidx]? > It would be more consistent and eventually maybe eliminate the need for > address_space_translate_for_iotlb in favor of calling address_space_translate > directly? We can't accept an arbitrary AddressSpace, it has to be one which is embedded in a CPUAddressSpace and which we can thus find the memory_dispatch for. So you could pass a CPUAddressSpace*, but not an AddressSpace*. But to pass a CPUAddressSpace we would have to expose the currently-private-to-exec.c layout of the CPUAddressSpace struct. I chose not to do that (and you can see the results elsewhere in the patch series, like the function that's basically just "do the cs_ases array lookup for me"); there's an argument for making the structure more widely available to avoid some of that. thanks -- PMM
