On 27 January 2014 23:34, Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Wed, 2014-01-22 at 20:02 +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: >> >> Defining it as being always guest-order would mean that >> userspace had to continually look at the guest CPU >> endianness bit, which is annoying and awkward. >> >> Defining it as always host-endian order is the most >> reasonable option available. It also happens to work >> for the current QEMU code, which is nice. > > No. > > Having a byte array coming in that represents what the CPU does in its > current byte order means you do *NOT* need to query the endianness of > the guest CPU from userspace. Er, what? If we make the array be guest's current order then by definition userspace has to look at the guest's current endianness. I agree that would be bad. Either of the two current proposals (host kernel order; guest CPU's native/natural/default-byte-order) avoid it, though. -- PMM _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
