* Eduardo Habkost (ehabk...@redhat.com) wrote: > On Mon, Jul 11, 2016 at 04:39:22PM +0100, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: > > * Eduardo Habkost (ehabk...@redhat.com) wrote: > [...] > > > > + cpu->phys_bits = TCG_PHYS_ADDR_BITS; > > > > + } > > > > } else { > > > > /* For 32 bit systems don't use the user set value, but keep > > > > * phys_bits consistent with what we tell the guest. > > > > > > Shouldn't we return error if host-phys-bits is set in 32-bit > > > mode? > > > > I've just realised there's a reason that erroring in this case is a problem. > > Imagine a future (or downstream) machine type that made host-phys-bits the > > default; > > how would it run with a 32bit CPU? > > Oh, that's right. Ignoring it when explicitly set isn't > intuitive, but we need to be able to ignore it when set by a > machine compat_props (or if it's enabled by default). And > creating two separate properties sounds like overkill... > I'm reluctant, but I think it's OK to ignore it if LM is not set. > But we need to make sure it's documented somewhere.
OK, I'll add a comment and a note in the commit message. Dave > > -- > Eduardo -- Dr. David Alan Gilbert / dgilb...@redhat.com / Manchester, UK