From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] KVM and variable-endianness guest CPUs Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 10:34:51 +1100 Message-ID: <1390865691.3872.33.camel@pasglop> References: <03D15FE3-2A12-4D60-8D20-07D05F3740F6@suse.de> <20140120191919.GH13432@cbox> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Victor Kamensky , Thomas Falcon , kvm-devel , QEMU Developers , "qemu-ppc@nongnu.org" , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , Christoffer Dall To: Peter Maydell Return-path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:33308 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753849AbaA0XfJ (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jan 2014 18:35:09 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 20:02 +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > > Defining it as being always guest-order would mean that > userspace had to continually look at the guest CPU > endianness bit, which is annoying and awkward. > > Defining it as always host-endian order is the most > reasonable option available. It also happens to work > for the current QEMU code, which is nice. No. Having a byte array coming in that represents what the CPU does in its current byte order means you do *NOT* need to query the endianness of the guest CPU from userspace. Ben.