[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Why do we have both CONFIG_SOFTMMU and CONFIG_USER_ONLY?
|
From: |
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé |
|
Subject: |
Re: Why do we have both CONFIG_SOFTMMU and CONFIG_USER_ONLY? |
|
Date: |
Mon, 7 Dec 2020 12:53:41 +0100 |
|
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.4.0 |
On 12/7/20 12:27 PM, Claudio Fontana wrote:
> On 12/7/20 12:26 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 07/12/20 12:19, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>>> As in Subject,
>>>
>>> am I understanding correctly that the one or the other is redundant?
>>>
>>> Should we keep only one of them?
CONFIG_SOFTMMU is poisoned while CONFIG_USER_ONLY isn't.
I doubt this is a design decision, probably an unfinished
transition? Anyhow we ended using CONFIG_USER_ONLY where
CONFIG_SOFTMMU triggers a poisoned error.
>>
>> In the code it's not strictly necessary. However in both Makefiles and
>> meson.build it made/makes things a bit clearer.
>>
>> Paolo
>>
>
> K.. thanks a lot, maybe we should document all of this stuff in docs/devel/...
>
> Ciao,
>
> Claudio
>