From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36056) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S4ZdG-0003yZ-C5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 10:15:32 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S4Zd7-0000U1-K4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 10:15:25 -0500 Received: from mail-pw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.160.45]:51942) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S4Zd7-0000Ti-Du for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 10:15:17 -0500 Received: by pbcuo5 with SMTP id uo5so4458537pbc.4 for ; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 07:15:15 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: <4F54D87E.1090109@codemonkey.ws> Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 09:15:10 -0600 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <87ehuhrpel.fsf@elfo.elfo> <4F272A92.2010609@suse.de> <4F272D8C.8020608@codemonkey.ws> <4F27E98E.2080501@suse.de> <4F54C1C0.6030803@samsung.com> <4F54CA04.4070804@redhat.com> <4F54CFA3.6080400@samsung.com> <4F54D769.5050000@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4F54D769.5050000@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for tuesday 31 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: Peter Maydell , i.mitsyanko@samsung.com, KVM devel mailing list , quintela@redhat.com, Developers qemu-devel , Dmitry Solodkiy , =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= On 03/05/2012 09:10 AM, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 03/05/2012 04:37 PM, Igor Mitsyanko wrote: >>> Well, can't you make sd.c target dependent? It's not so nice, but it >>> does solve the problem. >>> >> >> OK, but it will turn qemu from it's "long term path to suppress *all* >> target specific code" :) >> > > The other alternative is to s/target_phys_addr_t/uint64_t/ in the memory > API. I think 32-on-32 is quite rare these days, so it wouldn't be much > of a performance issue. I think this makes sense independent of other discussions regarding fixing target_phys_addr_t size. Hardware addresses should be independent of the target. If we wanted to use a hw_addr_t that would be okay too. Regards, Anthony Liguori >