From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for tuesday 31 Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:17:40 +0200 Message-ID: <4F54D914.2010203@redhat.com> References: <87ehuhrpel.fsf@elfo.elfo> <4F272A92.2010609@suse.de> <4F272D8C.8020608@codemonkey.ws> <4F27E98E.2080501@suse.de> <4F54C1C0.6030803@samsung.com> <4F54CA04.4070804@redhat.com> <4F54CFA3.6080400@samsung.com> <4F54D769.5050000@redhat.com> <4F54D87E.1090109@codemonkey.ws> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: i.mitsyanko@samsung.com, Peter Maydell , KVM devel mailing list , quintela@redhat.com, Developers qemu-devel , Dmitry Solodkiy , =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= To: Anthony Liguori Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:52855 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932480Ab2CEPRv (ORCPT ); Mon, 5 Mar 2012 10:17:51 -0500 In-Reply-To: <4F54D87E.1090109@codemonkey.ws> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 03/05/2012 05:15 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> The other alternative is to s/target_phys_addr_t/uint64_t/ in the memory >> API. I think 32-on-32 is quite rare these days, so it wouldn't be much >> of a performance issue. > > > I think this makes sense independent of other discussions regarding > fixing target_phys_addr_t size. > > Hardware addresses should be independent of the target. If we wanted > to use a hw_addr_t that would be okay too. > Would this hw_addr (s/_t$//, or you'll be Blued) be fixed at uint64_t (and thus only documentary), or also subject to multiple compilation? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function