On 28 January 2014 01:59, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 03:15 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> Ok, let's go through the combinations for a 32-bit write of 0x01020304 on
>> PPC and what data[] looks like
>>
>> your proposal:
>>
>> BE guest, BE host: { 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04 }
>> LE
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 03:15 +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Ok, let's go through the combinations for a 32-bit write of 0x01020304 on PPC
> and what data[] looks like
>
> your proposal:
>
> BE guest, BE host: { 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04 }
> LE guest, BE host: { 0x04, 0x03, 0x02, 0x01 }
> BE gu
On 27 January 2014 07:52, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 26.01.2014, at 06:43, Victor Kamensky wrote:
>> Scott's definition interpretation does not depend on CPU type.
>> It is much simpler. It does not use notion not very well defined
>> like "real bus". it does not use word 'endianness', byteswap
On 26.01.2014, at 06:43, Victor Kamensky wrote:
> On 25 January 2014 19:46, Victor Kamensky wrote:
>> On 25 January 2014 10:31, Christoffer Dall
>> wrote:
>>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 04:23:00PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 25 January 2014 02:15, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Ok, let's g
On 26.01.2014, at 04:46, Victor Kamensky wrote:
> On 25 January 2014 10:31, Christoffer Dall
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 04:23:00PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 25 January 2014 02:15, Alexander Graf wrote:
Ok, let's go through the combinations for a 32-bit write of 0x010203
On 25 January 2014 19:46, Victor Kamensky wrote:
> On 25 January 2014 10:31, Christoffer Dall
> wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 04:23:00PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 25 January 2014 02:15, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> > Ok, let's go through the combinations for a 32-bit write of 0x010203
On 25 January 2014 10:31, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 04:23:00PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 25 January 2014 02:15, Alexander Graf wrote:
>> > Ok, let's go through the combinations for a 32-bit write of 0x01020304 on
>> > PPC and what data[] looks like
Alex, could yo
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 04:23:00PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 25 January 2014 02:15, Alexander Graf wrote:
> > Ok, let's go through the combinations for a 32-bit write of 0x01020304 on
> > PPC and what data[] looks like
> >
> > your proposal:
> >
> > BE guest, BE host: { 0x01, 0x02, 0x03,
On 25 January 2014 02:15, Alexander Graf wrote:
> Ok, let's go through the combinations for a 32-bit write of 0x01020304 on PPC
> and what data[] looks like
>
> your proposal:
>
> BE guest, BE host: { 0x01, 0x02, 0x03, 0x04 }
> LE guest, BE host: { 0x04, 0x03, 0x02, 0x01 }
> BE guest, LE ho
On 25.01.2014, at 16:36, Victor Kamensky wrote:
> On 25 January 2014 01:20, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>> It even
>> does it on BE PPC if you access devices through swizzling
>> buses, but we don't care as hypervisor. All we know in kvm is:
>>
>> - instruction used for access
>> -> originating
On 25 January 2014 01:20, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
>
>> Am 25.01.2014 um 03:37 schrieb Victor Kamensky :
>>
>>> On 24 January 2014 18:15, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>>
On 25.01.2014, at 02:58, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 00:24 +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 24 Janua
> Am 25.01.2014 um 03:37 schrieb Victor Kamensky :
>
>> On 24 January 2014 18:15, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>> On 25.01.2014, at 02:58, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 00:24 +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 24 January 2014 23:51, Scott Wood wrote:
>> On Fri, 2014-01
> Am 25.01.2014 um 03:34 schrieb Christoffer Dall :
>
>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 03:15:35AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>
>>> On 25.01.2014, at 02:58, Scott Wood wrote:
>>>
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 00:24 +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 24 January 2014 23:51, Scott Wood wrote:
>>
On 24 January 2014 18:15, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 25.01.2014, at 02:58, Scott Wood wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 00:24 +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 24 January 2014 23:51, Scott Wood wrote:
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 15:39 -0800, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> diff --git a/Documenta
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 03:15:35AM +0100, Alexander Graf wrote:
>
> On 25.01.2014, at 02:58, Scott Wood wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 00:24 +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> On 24 January 2014 23:51, Scott Wood wrote:
> >>> On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 15:39 -0800, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> d
On 25.01.2014, at 03:04, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 17:56 -0800, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:24:08AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> Finally, I think it's a bit confusing in that "as if the guest had
>>> accessed memory" is assigning implicit semantics to
On 25.01.2014, at 02:58, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 00:24 +, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 24 January 2014 23:51, Scott Wood wrote:
>>> On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 15:39 -0800, Christoffer Dall wrote:
diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
b/Documentation/virtual/kv
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 17:56 -0800, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:24:08AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > Finally, I think it's a bit confusing in that "as if the guest had
> > accessed memory" is assigning implicit semantics to memory
> > in the emulated system, when memory i
On Sat, 2014-01-25 at 00:24 +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 24 January 2014 23:51, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 15:39 -0800, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >> diff --git a/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
> >> b/Documentation/virtual/kvm/api.txt
> >> index 366bf4b..6dbd68c 100644
> >>
On Sat, Jan 25, 2014 at 12:24:08AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 24 January 2014 23:51, Scott Wood wrote:
> > On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 15:39 -0800, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> >> The KVM API documentation is not clear about the semantics of the data
> >> field on the mmio struct on the kvm_run struc
On 24 January 2014 23:51, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 15:39 -0800, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> The KVM API documentation is not clear about the semantics of the data
>> field on the mmio struct on the kvm_run struct.
>>
>> This has become problematic when supporting ARM guests on big-
On 24 January 2014 15:51, Scott Wood wrote:
> On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 15:39 -0800, Christoffer Dall wrote:
>> The KVM API documentation is not clear about the semantics of the data
>> field on the mmio struct on the kvm_run struct.
>>
>> This has become problematic when supporting ARM guests on big-
On Fri, 2014-01-24 at 15:39 -0800, Christoffer Dall wrote:
> The KVM API documentation is not clear about the semantics of the data
> field on the mmio struct on the kvm_run struct.
>
> This has become problematic when supporting ARM guests on big-endian
> host systems with guests of both endianne
The KVM API documentation is not clear about the semantics of the data
field on the mmio struct on the kvm_run struct.
This has become problematic when supporting ARM guests on big-endian
host systems with guests of both endianness types, because it is unclear
how the data should be exported to us
24 matches
Mail list logo
