Re: [Qemu-devel] KVM call agenda for tuesday 31

[Anthony Liguori]

On 03/05/2012 09:10 AM, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 03/05/2012 04:37 PM, Igor Mitsyanko wrote:
> > > Well, can't you make sd.c target dependent?  It's not so nice, but it
> > > does solve the problem.
> >
> > OK, but it will turn qemu from it's "long term path to suppress *all*
> > target specific code" :)
>
> The other alternative is to s/target_phys_addr_t/uint64_t/ in the memory
> API.  I think 32-on-32 is quite rare these days, so it wouldn't be much
> of a performance issue.

I think this makes sense independent of other discussions regarding fixing 
target_phys_addr_t size.

Hardware addresses should be independent of the target.  If we wanted to use a 
hw_addr_t that would be okay too.

Regards,

Anthony Liguori

>