On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 02:18:19PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> exec.c has a comment 'XXX: optimize' for lduw_phys/stw_phys,
> so let's do it, along the lines of stl_phys.
>
> The reason to address 16 bit accesses specifically is that virtio relies
> on these accesses to be done atomically,
On Sat, Apr 10, 2010 at 12:33:53AM +0200, Aurelien Jarno wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 02:18:19PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > exec.c has a comment 'XXX: optimize' for lduw_phys/stw_phys,
> > so let's do it, along the lines of stl_phys.
> >
> > The reason to address 16 bit accesses spec
On Tue, Apr 06, 2010 at 02:18:19PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> exec.c has a comment 'XXX: optimize' for lduw_phys/stw_phys,
> so let's do it, along the lines of stl_phys.
>
> The reason to address 16 bit accesses specifically is that virtio relies
> on these accesses to be done atomically,
exec.c has a comment 'XXX: optimize' for lduw_phys/stw_phys,
so let's do it, along the lines of stl_phys.
The reason to address 16 bit accesses specifically is that virtio relies
on these accesses to be done atomically, using memset as we do now
breaks this assumption, which is reported to cause q
