From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1JKyeR-00061R-PP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:22:03 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1JKyeP-0005zx-PS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:22:01 -0500
Received: from mx1.polytechnique.org ([129.104.30.34])
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <fabrice@bellard.org>) id 1JKyeP-0005Tz-Dj
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 01 Feb 2008 11:22:01 -0500
Message-ID: <47A3471B.7030702@bellard.org>
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2008 17:21:47 +0100
From: Fabrice Bellard <fabrice@bellard.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1201818980-27534-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com>
	<47A2F3C7.6060409@bellard.org> <47A32E40.3000204@us.ibm.com>
	<200802011600.10877.paul@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <200802011600.10877.paul@codesourcery.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 1/6] Use correct types to enable > 2G
	support
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Paul Brook wrote:
>>> I agree with the fact that ram_size should be 64 bit. Maybe each
>>> machine could test the value and emit an error message if it is too
>>> big. Maybe an uint64_t would be better though.
>> uint64_t is probably more reasonable.  I wouldn't begin to know what the
>> appropriate amount of ram was for each machine though so I'll let the
>> appropriate people handle that :-)
> 
> I'd say ram_addr_t is an appropriate type.
> Currently this is defined in cpu-defs.h. It should probably be moved elsewhere 
> because in the current implementation it's really a host type.
> 
> If we ever implement >2G ram on a 32-bit host this may need some rethinking.  
> We can deal with that if/when it happens though.  Requiring a 64-bit host for 
> large quantities of ram seems an acceptable limitation (N.B. I'm only talking 
> about ram size, not target physical address size).

I agree.

Fabrice.