From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hsmye-00038h-3p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 17:42:08 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Hsmyc-00038V-IV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 17:42:07 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Hsmyc-00038S-EI for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 17:42:06 -0400 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Hsmyb-000849-Td for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 28 May 2007 17:42:06 -0400 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] qemu/linux-user syscall.c Date: Mon, 28 May 2007 22:40:21 +0100 References: <200705281528.01875.paul@codesourcery.com> In-Reply-To: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200705282240.23432.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Blue Swirl On Monday 28 May 2007, Blue Swirl wrote: > On 5/28/07, Paul Brook wrote: > > target_phys_addr_t isn't really meaningful for userspace emulation. > > We don't have physical addresses, only target (target_ulong) and > > host (void *) virtual addresses. > > Vice versa, there are a some references in hw/*.c to target_ulong, > shouldn't they in general be target_phys_addr_t? PPC CPU register > definitions may be an exception. Probably. I wouldn't be surprised if there are many places that break when guest physical addresses are larger than guest virtual addresses. Paul