From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43047) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZAIPj-00022n-VA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:51:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZAIPe-0008Su-FS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:50:59 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38706) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZAIPd-0008SZ-Oi for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 01 Jul 2015 09:50:53 -0400 Date: Wed, 1 Jul 2015 15:50:50 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20150701154935-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> References: <1435653553-7728-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <1435653553-7728-3-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <20150701100623-mutt-send-email-mst@redhat.com> <1435753829.4160.41.camel@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1435753829.4160.41.camel@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 02/22] virtio: run drivers in 32bit mode List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: seabios@seabios.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 02:30:29PM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > On Mi, 2015-07-01 at 10:08 +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 10:38:53AM +0200, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > > > virtio version 1.0 registers can (and actually do in the qemu > > > implementation) live in mmio space. So we must run the blk and > > > scsi virtio drivers in 32bit mode, otherwise we can't access them. > > > > > > This also allows to drop a bunch of GET_LOWFLAT calls from the virtio > > > code in the following patches. > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Gerd Hoffmann > > > > Is there an advantage to running them in a 16 bit mode? > > Not really any more. Switching from 32bit mode back to > whatever-was-active-before used to be problematic before we had smm mode > support. In theory. Because you can't save/restore the complete x86 > processor state. In practice we had surprisingly few problems, > appearently linux boot loaders simply don't play dirty tricks. > > cheers, > Gerd > Interesting. Might not be true for non-linux loaders :) Anyway we support SSM now so all should be well, right? -- MST