From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 10546 invoked by alias); 25 Mar 2011 19:29:27 -0000 Received: (qmail 10536 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Mar 2011 19:29:26 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-6.0 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_HI,SPF_HELO_PASS,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mx1.redhat.com (HELO mx1.redhat.com) (209.132.183.28) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 19:29:20 +0000 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id p2PJTCNv006280 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK); Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:29:12 -0400 Received: from fche.csb (vpn-8-169.rdu.redhat.com [10.11.8.169]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id p2PJTC2m013222; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:29:12 -0400 Received: by fche.csb (Postfix, from userid 2569) id 90C5358158; Fri, 25 Mar 2011 15:29:11 -0400 (EDT) Date: Fri, 25 Mar 2011 21:07:00 -0000 From: "Frank Ch. Eigler" To: Mike Frysinger Cc: gdb-patches@sourceware.org, toolchain-devel@blackfin.uclinux.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v3] sim: cfi: new flash device simulation Message-ID: <20110325192911.GH4401@redhat.com> References: Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2011-03/txt/msg01105.txt.bz2 Hi - On Fri, Mar 25, 2011 at 03:19:28PM -0400, Mike Frysinger wrote: > [...] > > Woudln't you want to write(2) out the contents of the flash backing > > store file, if !HAVE_MMAP? > > perhaps, but that'd require quite a bit more logic that just a single > call to write() here. frankly, i dont care about the systems that > dont support mmap as required by POSIX. the ifdef's are only to keep > from breaking their builds. [...] I see. If you don't want to implement write() or fwrite() in a symmetric way to the read path, you could make sure that a !HAVE_MMAP machine would reject the configuration of a cfi model in "rw" file-backed mode. - FChE