On Tuesday 22 April 2008 17:13:01 Anthony Liguori wrote: > Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > On Tuesday 22 April 2008 16:05:38 Rusty Russell wrote: > > > >> On Wednesday 23 April 2008 06:29:14 Hollis Blanchard wrote: > >> > >>> On Tuesday 22 April 2008 09:31:35 Rusty Russell wrote: > >>> > >>>> We may still regret not doing *everything* little-endian, but this > >>>> doesn't make it worse. > >>>> > >>> Hmm, why *don't* we just do everything LE, including the ring? > >>> > >> Mainly because when requirements are in doubt, simplicity wins, I think. > >> > > > > Well, I think the definition of simplicity is up for debate in this > > case... "LE everywhere" is much simpler than "it depends", IMHO. > > You couldn't use the vringfd direct ring mapping optimization in KVM for > PPC without teaching the kernel to access a vring in LE format. I'm > pretty sure the later would get rejected on LKML anyway for vringfd as a > generic mechanism. You mean vringfd for use cases other than virtual IO drivers? I have a poor imagination; can you give some examples? Even then, it should be possible to have VIO drivers use a different set of accessors, just like there are swapping and non-swapping accessors for real IO, so I still don't see the problem. -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
