On Tue, Aug 21, 2012 at 11:17:40AM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 21 August 2012 11:05, Daniel P. Berrange <berra...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On Mon, Aug 20, 2012 at 04:48:24PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> "bits" is really ambiguous. What it means in QEMU (specifically the > >> value you are returning) is probably not what you expect it to mean. > > > > My intent was to indicate the pointer word size for the architecture. > > eg 64 for x86_64, ppc64, etc, and 32 and i686, ppc, etc. Probably > > should have called it 'wordsize' or something like that > > This is not the same as the physical address size... > > > Hmm, when I looked at the header in my checkout it already > > *is* 64 or 32 as I'd expect for the architecture in question. > > > > $ grep PHYS_ADDR_BITS */config-target.mak > > alpha-softmmu/config-target.mak:TARGET_PHYS_ADDR_BITS=64 > > arm-softmmu/config-target.mak:TARGET_PHYS_ADDR_BITS=64 > > ...eg for ARM we have a 32 bit pointer size but 40 bit physical > addresses (on some cores) and we set TARGET_PHYS_ADDR_BITS > to 64 in all cases. > > > i386-softmmu/config-target.mak:TARGET_PHYS_ADDR_BITS=64 > > i386 is the other obvious "pointers are 32 bit but we > set TARGET_PHYS_ADDR_BITS wider", for about the same reasons.
Ok, so I'll just respin this patch & remove the 'bits' field entirely so we avoid the confusion. Daniel -- |: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :| |: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :| |: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :| |: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
