On Mon, Jul 18, 2011 at 13:30, Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> wrote:
>
> On 15.07.2011, at 16:32, Anthony Perard wrote:
>
>> In Xen case, memory can be bigger than the host memory. that mean a
>> 32bits host (and QEMU) should be able to handle a RAM address of 64bits.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Anthony PERARD <anthony.per...@citrix.com>
>> ---
>> cpu-common.h | 8 ++++++++
>> exec.c | 9 +++++----
>> xen-all.c | 2 +-
>> 3 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/cpu-common.h b/cpu-common.h
>> index e4fcded..e1b40fe 100644
>> --- a/cpu-common.h
>> +++ b/cpu-common.h
>> @@ -27,7 +27,15 @@ enum device_endian {
>> };
>>
>> /* address in the RAM (different from a physical address) */
>> +#ifndef CONFIG_XEN_BACKEND
>> typedef unsigned long ram_addr_t;
>
> Do we really want to depend this on _BACKEND? ram_addr_t is target dependent,
> no?
:(, indeed, it's seams to be target dependent, I did not check that
carefully enough. So CONFIG_XEN is enough.
Thanks,
--
Anthony PERARD
