On Thu, Jul 02, 2015 at 08:01:28AM +0200, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > On Wed, Jul 01, 2015 at 12:02:50PM -0700, Linus Torvalds wrote: > > On Wed, Jul 1, 2015 at 2:31 AM, Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > virtio/vhost: cross endian support > > > > Ugh. Does this really have to be dynamic? > > > > Can't virtio do the sane thing, and just use a _fixed_ endianness? > > > > Doing a unconditional byte swap is faster and simpler than the crazy > > conditionals. That's true regardless of endianness, but gets to be > > even more so if the fixed endianness is little-endian, since BE is > > not-so-slowly fading from the world. > > > > Linus > > Yea, well - support for legacy BE guests on the new LE hosts is > exactly the motivation for this. > > I dislike it too, but there are two redeeming properties that > made me merge this: > > 1. It's a trivial amount of code: since we wrap host/guest accesses > anyway, almost all of it is well hidden from drivers. > > 2. Sane platforms would never set flags like VHOST_CROSS_ENDIAN_LEGACY - > and when it's clear, there's zero overhead (as some point it was > tested by compiling with and without the patches, got the same > stripped binary). > > Maybe we could create a Kconfig symbol to enforce point (2): prevent > people from enabling it e.g. on x86. I will look into this - but it can > be done by a patch on top, so I think this can be merged as is. Linus, could you please clarify whether making the feature depend on the cross-endian guest support would address your comment, and whether you think this can be merged as is, and the dependency added after -rc1? > Or do you know of someone using kernel with all config options enabled > undiscriminately? > > Thanks, > > -- > MST _______________________________________________ Virtualization mailing list Virtualization@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linuxfoundation.org/mailman/listinfo/virtualization
