On 27 January 2014 07:52, Alexander Graf <agraf@xxxxxxx> wrote: > > On 26.01.2014, at 06:43, Victor Kamensky <victor.kamensky@xxxxxxxxxx> 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, >> cast example, which IMHO makes it more robust. > > The more I think about it the more I tend to agree. Personally I find Scott's definition rather more confusing, at least in wording, and it does require QEMU to depend on the CPU type. (It took me a fair bit of thinking to confirm that it really was different to the proposal in Christoffer's patch and not just a rewording, for example). Anyway, would somebody like to formulate a proposed wording change to the API doc for that version? (For preference, one which doesn't try to describe it in terms of "as if the guest wrote to memory", given that that is IMHO ambiguous and confusing.) thanks -- PMM -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
