On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On Mon, Jan 6, 2014 at 7:57 AM, Stefano Stabellini > <stefano.stabell...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> On Jan 6, 2014 6:55 AM, "Stefano Stabellini" > >> <stefano.stabell...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > On Mon, 6 Jan 2014, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> > > On Jan 6, 2014 6:23 AM, "Peter Maydell" <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > >> > > wrote: > >> > > > > >> > > > On 6 January 2014 14:17, Stefano Stabellini > >> > > > <stefano.stabell...@eu.citrix.com> wrote: > >> > > > > It doesn't do any emulation so it is not specific to any > >> > > > > architecture or > >> > > > > any cpu. > >> > > > > >> > > > You presumably still care about the compiled in values of > >> > > > TARGET_WORDS_BIGENDIAN, TARGET_LONG_SIZE, and so on... > >> > > >> > Actually it only uses XC_PAGE_SIZE and the endianness is the host > >> > endianness. > >> > >> If blkif in QEMU is relying on host endianness thats a bug. > > > > Why? Xen doesn't support a different guest/host endianness. > > For the same reason that the virtio devices do not rely on host endianness. > > It should be possible to use the Xen devices with TCG. It isn't today > simply because the code wasn't structured that way but it could be > refactored to do this. > > >> > > Yup. It's still accel=xen just with no VCPUs. > >> > > >> > Are you talking about introducing accel=xen to Wei's target-null? > >> > I guess that would work OK. > >> > >> We already have accel=xen. I'm echoing Peter's suggestion of having the > >> ability to compile out accel=tcg. > >> > >> > > >> > On the other hand if you are thinking of avoiding the introduction of a > >> > new target-null, how would you make xen_machine_pv.c available to > >> > multiple architectures? > >> > >> Why does qdisk need a full machine? > > > > qdisk is just one device, xen_machine_pv is the machine that initializes > > the backend infrastructure (one of the backends is qdisk). > > It doesn't make sense to use a full-blown machine like pc.c just to > > start few backends, right? > > What prevents xen_machine_pv from being compiled for multiple targets? > If there i386 specific things in it, they surely could be refactored > a bit, no?
Not at all, but I thought that at the moment one machine has to be tied to one architecture. If I am wrong, then there is no issue.
