[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for tuesday 31
From: |
malc |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for tuesday 31 |
Date: |
Tue, 6 Mar 2012 00:58:46 +0400 (MSK) |
User-agent: |
Alpine 2.00 (LNX 1167 2008-08-23) |
On Mon, 5 Mar 2012, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 5, 2012 at 15:17, Avi Kivity <address@hidden> wrote:
> > 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
>
> Malced? Posixed?
Heh, a_moo would be Malced, no _t is Posixed indeed.
--
mailto:address@hidden
- Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for tuesday 31, Igor Mitsyanko, 2012/03/05
- Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for tuesday 31, Peter Maydell, 2012/03/05
- Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for tuesday 31, Avi Kivity, 2012/03/05
- Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for tuesday 31, Peter Maydell, 2012/03/05
- Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for tuesday 31, Andreas Färber, 2012/03/05
- Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for tuesday 31, Avi Kivity, 2012/03/05
- Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for tuesday 31, Peter Maydell, 2012/03/05
- Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for tuesday 31, Avi Kivity, 2012/03/05