Am 15.10.2017 um 19:46 schrieb Stefan Weil: > Am 15.10.2017 um 17:32 schrieb Paolo Bonzini: >> On 14/10/2017 18:53, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: >>>> @@ -328,7 +328,7 @@ static void *do_touch_pages(void *arg) >>>> * don't need to write at all so we don't cause >>>> * wear on the storage backing the region... >>>> */ >>>> - *(volatile char *)addr = *addr; >>>> + *addr = *addr; >>> I personally prefer the other form which is mostly self-explicit when >>> reviewing this code. >>> >>> Declaring addr non volatile and using volatile cast here: >>> Reviewed-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org> >>> >> >> I agree with Philippe; in general, volatile is more of a property of >> the access rather than the variable. >> >> Paolo > > Thanks for the feedback. > > I see your arguments. Maybe that part can be removed from my patch > when it is applied, or should I send a v3 (cc'ing qemu-trivial)? > > Stefan
While thinking more about that line of code, I wonder whether it would make sense to replace the byte r/w by a 32 bit r/w. Would that be faster on architectures with a 32 bit memory bus? Stefan
