On 4/1/10, Anthony Liguori <[email protected]> wrote: > On 03/31/2010 05:45 PM, Aurelien Jarno wrote: > > > While it probably make sense to achieve this goal, it doesn't mean it > > should be done the dirty way. > > > > For example it is known for a lot of time that the solution for the > > bswap in the device code is to add a bus model doing the byteswapping. > > Removing the #ifdef by deciding "this device will only be big/little > > endian" doesn't seem to go in the right direction. > > > > > > Yeah, I'm having real trouble with the KVM regression. I thought I had it > fixed but linux-user really made a mess of things. There's no simple > solution that doesn't require quite a bit of refactoring which I'd rather do > in a less ugly way. We've already been discussing getting rid of all the > kvm_enabled() stuff and I think doing that properly is going to be needed to > handle this correctly.
Strange, does linux-user use kvm.h (indirectly)?
