Re: Why do we have both CONFIG_SOFTMMU and CONFIG_USER_ONLY?

[Peter Maydell]

On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 11:39, Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> wrote:
>
> As in Subject,
>
> am I understanding correctly that the one or the other is redundant?
>
> Should we keep only one of them?

I think that perhaps the idea at one point was that we
might have a version of linux-user which used a softmmu
(this would allow better control of the guest's view of
its address space, so guest mmap() to fixed addresses
would work better, for instance). But nobody's ever actually
tried to implement that, so I imagine that if we ever did
we'd find that some CONFIG_SOFTMMU and some CONFIG_USER_ONLY
defines were the wrong way around...

thanks
-- PMM