> > I agree with the fact that ram_size should be 64 bit. Maybe each > > machine could test the value and emit an error message if it is too > > big. Maybe an uint64_t would be better though. > > uint64_t is probably more reasonable. I wouldn't begin to know what the > appropriate amount of ram was for each machine though so I'll let the > appropriate people handle that :-)
I'd say ram_addr_t is an appropriate type. Currently this is defined in cpu-defs.h. It should probably be moved elsewhere because in the current implementation it's really a host type. If we ever implement >2G ram on a 32-bit host this may need some rethinking. We can deal with that if/when it happens though. Requiring a 64-bit host for large quantities of ram seems an acceptable limitation (N.B. I'm only talking about ram size, not target physical address size). Paul ------------------------------------------------------------------------- This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2008. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse0120000070mrt/direct/01/ _______________________________________________ kvm-devel mailing list kvm-devel@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/kvm-devel
