On 7 May 2014 10:52, Marc Zyngier <marc.zyng...@arm.com> wrote: > On Wed, May 07 2014 at 10:34:30 am BST, Peter Maydell > <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: >> Current opinion on the qemu-devel thread seems to be that we >> should just define that the endianness of the virtio device is >> the endianness of the guest kernel at the point where the guest >> triggers a reset of the virtio device by writing zero the QueuePFN >> or Status registers. > > On AArch32, we only have the CPSR.E bit to select the endiannes. Are we > going to simply explode if the access comes from userspace?
There's SCTLR.EE in AArch32, right? > On AArch64, we can either select the kernel endianness, or userspace > endianness. Are we going to go a different route just for the sake of > enforcing kernel access? > > I'm inclined to think of userspace access as a valid use case. I don't actually care much about the details of what we decide; I just want us to be consistent between QEMU and kvmtool and (to the extent that architectural differences permit) consistent between PPC and ARM. At the moment we seem to be heading in gratuitously different directions. thanks -- PMM -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
