On 07/10/2016 14:52, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 7 October 2016 at 13:45, Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> wrote: >> On Fri, 7 Oct 2016 13:31:10 +0100 >> Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: >> >>> On 7 October 2016 at 13:27, Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> 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
