Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qtest: add read/write accessors with a specific endianness

[David Gibson]

On Thu, Oct 06, 2016 at 05:36:32PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 06/10/2016 16:11, Greg Kurz wrote:
> > FWIW, Cedric had another proposal which apparently went unnoticed:
> > 
> > <address@hidden>
> > 
> > The idea is to add an optional endianness argument to the read*/write*
> > commands in the qtest protocol:
> > - libqtest then provides explicit _le and _be APIs
> > - no extra byteswap is performed on the test program side: qtest
> >   actually handles that and does exactly 1 or 0 byteswap.
> > - it does not use memread/memwrite
> > - the current 'guest native' API where qtest tswaps is preserved
> > 
> 
> No, this is a worse idea, because the right place to do the swap is in
> the "program" (libqtest) not in the "CPU" (QEMU).

Hrm.. I guess that makes sense from an x86 perspective when
load/stores always operate in LE.  Not so much for something like
Power where the CPU can perform both LE and BE load/stores trivially.
You can select with CPU mode combined with which instruction form you
use.  e.g. the always-LE writel() on a BE Power kernel is a single
byte-reversed store instruction[0].  there's no "swap" as such, and the
swapped value never appears in a register.  I'm not certain if gcc is
smart enough to translate foo->bar = cpu_to_le32(val) into a
byte-reversed store, but it might be.

The value passed across the pipe to readw etc. is text, so it has no
endianness, just as a value in a cpu register has no endianness.  To
me it makes perfect sense to tell the qtest "cpu" which endianness of
load/store you want it to do with that.

[0] Well, ok, there's a memory barrier too, so it's not quite 1
instruction.

-- 
David Gibson                    | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au  | minimalist, thank you.  NOT _the_ _other_
                                | _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson

signature.asc
Description: PGP signature