From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55484) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLi2S-0005VQ-D8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:07:29 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLi2P-00019c-8y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:07:28 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39884) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eLi2P-00018b-2F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 03 Dec 2017 23:07:25 -0500 Date: Mon, 4 Dec 2017 12:07:11 +0800 From: Peter Xu Message-ID: <20171204040711.GB7916@xz-mi> References: <20171114231350.286025-1-prasad.singamsetty@oracle.com> <20171114231350.286025-3-prasad.singamsetty@oracle.com> <20171128193156-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20171130032551.GA18017@xz-mi> <367bb386-2885-2ea2-b766-d5bde2c79bcf@oracle.com> <20171130205443-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <20171201044338.GB2712@xz-mi> <736c9e99-0d17-6122-0460-805148567e9d@oracle.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <736c9e99-0d17-6122-0460-805148567e9d@oracle.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 2/2] intel-iommu: Extend address width to 48 bits List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Prasad Singamsetty Cc: "Michael S. Tsirkin" , ehabkost@redhat.com, konrad.wilk@oracle.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, imammedo@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, rth@twiddle.net On Fri, Dec 01, 2017 at 09:02:30AM -0800, Prasad Singamsetty wrote: [...] > > > > > And... you may also need to create that PC_COMPAT_2_11 macro after > > 2.11 is released. For that you can refer to a6fd5b0e050a. > > > > Anyway, I think this "set default" work can be postponed after recent > > release, which can be a separate work besides current series. > > OK. To be clear, are you suggesting that we can change the default > value to 48 bits as a separate patch and not include it with the > current patch set? Yes. Thanks, -- Peter Xu