From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v3 9/9] kvmtool: virtio: enable arm/arm64 support for
 bi-endianness
Date: Wed, 07 May 2014 13:25:16 +0100
Message-ID: <536A262C.7000100@arm.com>
References: <1398363443-3764-1-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <1398363443-3764-10-git-send-email-marc.zyngier@arm.com> <20140506142807.GI30234@arm.com> <87mweuq0os.fsf@approximate.cambridge.arm.com> <CAFEAcA-NhyvE5KEGcer0zGW-rmfJgr9PaWUB+rYk+H0rw0BGbA@mail.gmail.com> <CAFEAcA8AeCVGPu0d1=F2YODDSqn6RiCYXWjEWkiiaVSZyQbSUA@mail.gmail.com> <8738glq5ku.fsf@approximate.cambridge.arm.com> <20140507124054.680a26fb@bahia.local> <87ha51onna.fsf@approximate.cambridge.arm.com> <CAFEAcA-omLFrPGPFYRfcA2-NxqdHquzWGMGQ-Yxe1Piw4uY4wg@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Cc: Greg Kurz <gkurz@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
	Will Deacon <Will.Deacon@arm.com>,
	Pekka Enberg <penberg@kernel.org>,
	"kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu>,
	"kvm@vger.kernel.org" <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	"agraf@suse.de" <agraf@suse.de>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from fw-tnat.austin.arm.com ([217.140.110.23]:35533 "EHLO
	collaborate-mta1.arm.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL)
	by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752012AbaEGMZS (ORCPT
	<rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>); Wed, 7 May 2014 08:25:18 -0400
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-omLFrPGPFYRfcA2-NxqdHquzWGMGQ-Yxe1Piw4uY4wg@mail.gmail.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On 07/05/14 13:17, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 May 2014 12:04, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@arm.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, May 07 2014 at 11:40:54 am BST, Greg Kurz <gkurz@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> All the fuzz is not really about enforcing kernel access... PPC also
>>> has a current endianness selector (MSR_LE) but it only makes sense
>>> if you are in the cpu context. Initial versions of the virtio biendian
>>> support for QEMU PPC64 used an arbitrary cpu: in this case, the
>>> only sensible thing to look at to support kernel based virtio is the
>>> interrupt endianness selector (LPCR_ILE), because if gives a safe
>>> hint of the kernel endianness.
>>>
>>> The patch set has evolved and now uses current_cpu at device reset time.
>>> As a consequence, we are not necessarily tied to the kernel LPCR_ILE
>>> selector I guess.
> 
> Ah yes, I'd forgotten the history behind why we ended up looking
> at interrupt endianness.
> 
>> That makes a lot of sense, thanks for explaining that. You're basically
>> doing the exact same thing we do with kvmtool on ARM. So if we have
>> similar architectural features on both sides, why don't we support both
>> kernel and userspace access?
> 
> I don't think that we really need to get into whether userspace
> access is or is not a good idea -- "endianness of the CPU which
> does the virtio reset at the point when it does that reset" is a
> nice simple rule that should generalise across architectures,
> so why make it more complicated than that?

This definition looks pretty good to me. Simple and to the point.

Thanks,

	M.
-- 
Jazz is not dead. It just smells funny...