Re: [External] Re: [RFC v4 2/3] memory: add depth assert in address_space_to_flatview

From: Chuang Xu <xuchuangxclwt@bytedance.com>
To: "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé" <philmd@linaro.org>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: dgilbert@redhat.com, quintela@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com,
	 peterx@redhat.com, david@redhat.com, zhouyibo@bytedance.com
Subject: Re: [External] Re: [RFC v4 2/3] memory: add depth assert in address_space_to_flatview
Date: Wed, 4 Jan 2023 01:39:17 -0600	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <CALophuvab5qa-7nNhz449rowBufsfrAVXqjnRGCn7AZsDAEsrg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4db15db9-2f00-c71e-c5e1-e41c81090ee2@linaro.org>

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1020 bytes --]

On 2022/12/28 下午6:50, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:

On 23/12/22 15:23, Chuang Xu wrote:

Before using any flatview, sanity check we're not during a memory
region transaction or the map can be invalid.

Signed-off-by: Chuang Xu <xuchuangxclwt@bytedance.com>
<xuchuangxclwt@bytedance.com>
---
  include/exec/memory.h | 9 +++++++++
  softmmu/memory.c      | 5 +++++
  2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)

diff --git a/include/exec/memory.h b/include/exec/memory.h
index 91f8a2395a..66c43b4862 100644
--- a/include/exec/memory.h
+++ b/include/exec/memory.h
@@ -1069,8 +1069,17 @@ struct FlatView {
      MemoryRegion *root;
  };
  +int memory_region_transaction_get_depth(void);


Do we want to expose this; isn't the depth internal?

If we need to expose something, can we restrict it to

  bool memory_region_in_transaction(void) or
  bool memory_region_transaction_in_progress(void)?

Yes, we'd better not expose the value of an internal
variable. I'll make changes in v5.

Thanks!

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 2032 bytes --]
