> On 22.01.26, 14:16, Martin Kröning wrote:
> 
> On 19.01.26, 10:39, Peter Maydell wrote:
> 
> > On (2):
> > 
> > > Alex was worried about expanding the use of `virtio_is_big_endian`:
> > >
> > > > Hmm looking at the description:
> > > >
> > > > /**
> > > > * @virtio_is_big_endian: Callback to return %true if a CPU which 
> > > > supports
> > > > * runtime configurable endianness is currently big-endian.
> > > > * Non-configurable CPUs can use the default implementation of this 
> > > > method.
> > > > * This method should not be used by any callers other than the pre-1.0
> > > > * virtio devices.
> > > > */
> > > > bool (*virtio_is_big_endian)(CPUState *cpu);
> > > >
> > > > I'm not sure if we want to expand the usage of this hack. I think
> > > > Philippe is hoping to get rid of these warts eventually. Of course we
> > > > could rename the method and just provide a way to get the current
> > > > systems endianess.
> > >
> > > While not being very familiar with QEMU's source code, something like this
> > > seems necessary to me. I can rename `virtio_is_big_endian` to 
> > > `is_big_endian`
> > > and `cpu_virtio_is_big_endian` to `cpu_is_big_endian` if you prefer that.
> > 
> > The reason for naming these functions the way we have now is
> > that we really didn't want them to be a "this looks like the
> > right function to use for my purpose" general name like
> > "is_big_endian". Almost nothing in QEMU outside the CPU itself
> > should need to know about the data endianness of the CPU,
> > because in real hardware the devices can't tell what the CPU
> > is set up as, they just get/send data. The exceptions are
> > legacy virtio (which is a mistake that was made because nobody
> > was thinking about it in the original virtio device design)
> > and some oddball interfaces like semihosting. So the name is
> > intended to push people away from using it (and towards e.g.
> > target_big_endian()).
> 
> That makes sense. How about something like `internal_is_big_endian` and 
> `cpu_internal_is_big_endian`, then? I am just making things up, though.
> Given my limited experience with QEMU internals, I am not really qualified
> to choose any name.

Is there anything I can do to help move this forward?
Should I send a new series that also changes the names to 
`internal_is_big_endian`?
To me it sounded like the technical details are fine to all of you.
If this needs further internal discussions, though, I am happy to wait, of 
course.

Cheers,
Martin

Attachment: smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature

Reply via email to