Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] qtest: ask endianness of the target in qtest_init()

[Laurent Vivier]

On 07/10/2016 14:52, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 7 October 2016 at 13:45, Greg Kurz <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:31:10 +0100
>> Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>>> On 7 October 2016 at 13:27, Greg Kurz <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> Indeed but my suggestion is to open code this in qvirtio_is_big_endian(),
>>>> and even rename QTestState::big_endian to virtio_big_endian to make it
>>>> really obvious it should not be used elsewhere.
>>>>
>>>> I now remember this is what I was resolutely suggested to do in
>>>> include/qom/cpu.h at the time we started to support ppc64le:
>>>>
>>>>     bool (*virtio_is_big_endian)(CPUState *cpu);
>>>
>>> Not really the same thing though -- virtio_is_big_endian
>>> in QEMU is indeed used only in virtio, because it makes
>>> dubious use of the internals of the CPU state. The
>>> equivalent of this proposed qtest function is the #define
>>> TARGET_BIG_ENDIAN, which is global to all of QEMU and
>>> reasonably widely used (because it's not a property of
>>> the CPU's internals).
>>>
>>
>> Indeed but is it expected to be used in other tests than
>> virtio ?
> 
> Well, that's where we came in.
> 
> Personally I'd rather see this patch purely fix the current
> rather dodgy implementation of the existing qtest_big_endian()
> function, which seems to be non-controversial, rather than
> getting bogged down too much in the questions about what the
> function name should be and how widely it should be used, etc.

I'd rather too..

And I can rework this part later, as I've a series to enable virtio
tests for SPAPR.

So if v2 covers all non virtio naming space issues, is it acceptable as-is?

Thanks,
Laurent