From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41614) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W7wcI-0007lQ-F7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:33:32 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1W7wcC-0006Mp-BR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 27 Jan 2014 19:33:26 -0500 Message-ID: <1390869161.3872.42.camel@pasglop> From: Benjamin Herrenschmidt Date: Tue, 28 Jan 2014 11:32:41 +1100 In-Reply-To: References: <20140123204552.GA2977@lvm> <20140124021425.GA2961@lvm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-ppc] KVM and variable-endianness guest CPUs List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Victor Kamensky Cc: Peter Maydell , Thomas Falcon , kvm-devel , QEMU Developers , "qemu-ppc@nongnu.org" , "kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , Christoffer Dall 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.