From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:43078) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZcCBQ-0007Qz-Bd for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 08:51:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZcCBM-0006FZ-CM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 08:51:32 -0400 Received: from mail-wi0-x231.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c05::231]:34625) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZcCBM-0006FH-64 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 08:51:28 -0400 Received: by wicfx3 with SMTP id fx3so71488579wic.1 for ; Wed, 16 Sep 2015 05:51:27 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini References: <1442333283-13119-1-git-send-email-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <1442333283-13119-4-git-send-email-marcandre.lureau@redhat.com> <55F935E4.2030705@huawei.com> <534883311.12512111.1442395999383.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> <55F95223.5050909@huawei.com> From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <55F965CC.6030807@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 16 Sep 2015 14:51:24 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <55F95223.5050909@huawei.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 03/46] ivhsmem: read do not accept more than sizeof(long) List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Claudio Fontana , =?UTF-8?Q?Marc-Andr=c3=a9_Lureau?= Cc: marcandre lureau , drjones@redhat.com, cam@cs.ualberta.ca, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, stefanha@redhat.com On 16/09/2015 13:27, Claudio Fontana wrote: >> > See my answer to Paolo: >> > http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2015-07/msg05341.html > Sorry for not noticing the previous discussion.. > > Still it would seem more sensible to say explicitly how big the field is I think, > especially if we want to make it possible to have independent server implementations of this... There was another question that went unanswered: > Does anyone care about ivshmem on 32-bit hosts? And I might even double down with "does anyone care about ivshmem on big-endian hosts?" Just defining the protocol to be "64-bit little-endian" would be nice, even if it would break those 2 people that respectively used ivshmem on 32-bit Intel and big-endian PPC. (And maybe also the one guy who used it on 32-bit big-endian PPC!). Paolo