On 11 July 2016 at 03:24, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > On Sun, Jul 10, 2016 at 08:32:32PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 8 July 2016 at 04:42, David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: >> > My only concern here is that the constants are named >> > *MMU*_DATA_... whereas these are physical memory accesses not >> > involving the MMU. I can't actually see any current users of >> > MMUAccessType which makes me a bit confused as to what it's intended >> > meaning was >> >> If you grep for MMU_DATA_LOAD/MMU_DATA_STORE/MMU_INST_FETCH >> you'll see the uses. A lot of the softmmu code uses the >> convention of 0=read,1=write,2=insn (which developed I >> think historically from a bool "is_write", which you'll >> still see in some function argument names, that was >> augmented to handle insn-fetch separately). The enum >> gives us some symbolic names for the constant values. >> (There's a proposed patch somewhere to change the >> 'int is_write' arguments to actually use the enum type.) > > Ah, yes, I see. Still surprisingly few, actually.
Yeah, we didn't go through (yet) and update the legacy code, just provided the common type so new code could use it. > My concern about the potentially misleading name still stands. I don't mind if we want to rename it, but I don't think we want to have two types. This is all in the softmmu code, whether it's in the physical-address parts or the virtual-address parts. thanks -- PMM
