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 11:32:41 +1100 Message-ID: <1390869161.3872.42.camel@pasglop> References: <20140123204552.GA2977@lvm> <20140124021425.GA2961@lvm> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Christoffer Dall , Peter Maydell , Thomas Falcon , kvm-devel , QEMU Developers , "qemu-ppc@nongnu.org" , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" To: Victor Kamensky Return-path: Received: from gate.crashing.org ([63.228.1.57]:36388 "EHLO gate.crashing.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753850AbaA1AdH (ORCPT ); Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:33:07 -0500 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Thu, 2014-01-23 at 20:11 -0800, Victor Kamensky wrote: > > I would take 50 byteswaps with a clear ABI any day over an obscure > > standard that can avoid a single hardware-on-register instruction. > This > > is about designing a clean software interface, not about building an > > optimized integrated stack. > > > > Unfortunately, this is going nowhere, so I think we need to stop > this > > thread. As you can see I have sent a patch as a clarification to > the > > ABI, if it's merged we can move on with more important tasks. > > OK, that is fine. I still believe is not the best choice, > but I agree that we need to move on. I will respin my > V7 KVM BE patches according to this new semantics, I will > integrate comments that you (thanks!) and others gave me > over mailing list and post my series again when it is ready. Right, the whole "host endian" is a horrible choice from every way you look at it, but I'm afraid it's unfixable since it's already ABI :-( Ben.