From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:36520)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1S4Zfv-0005ur-B1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 10:18:17 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1S4ZfW-0000q0-SX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 10:18:10 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60975)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <avi@redhat.com>) id 1S4ZfW-0000pj-Km
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 05 Mar 2012 10:17:46 -0500
Message-ID: <4F54D914.2010203@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 05 Mar 2012 17:17:40 +0200
From: Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <87ehuhrpel.fsf@elfo.elfo>
	<4F272A92.2010609@suse.de>	<4F272D8C.8020608@codemonkey.ws>
	<4F27E98E.2080501@suse.de>	<CAFEAcA_u2qTgnaNMvVRn_K+3SrbaTLMUs4NH654wgQGAnFGxTg@mail.gmail.com>	<CAFEAcA86m4wKbDFQk=Qmn3mUDDuPod9q15HgGBgPk0sFkC2sag@mail.gmail.com>	<4F54C1C0.6030803@samsung.com>
	<4F54CA04.4070804@redhat.com>	<4F54CFA3.6080400@samsung.com>
	<4F54D769.5050000@redhat.com> <4F54D87E.1090109@codemonkey.ws>
In-Reply-To: <4F54D87E.1090109@codemonkey.ws>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for tuesday 31
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <anthony@codemonkey.ws>
Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>, i.mitsyanko@samsung.com, KVM devel mailing list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>, quintela@redhat.com, Developers qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Dmitry Solodkiy <d.solodkiy@samsung.com>, =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>

On 03/05/2012 05:15 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> 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.
>

Would this hw_addr (s/_t$//, or you'll be Blued) be fixed at uint64_t
(and thus only documentary), or also subject to multiple compilation?

-- 
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function