On Fri, Nov 9, 2012 at 2:51 PM, Benjamin Herrenschmidt
b...@kernel.crashing.org wrote:
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 14:45 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 22 October 2012 08:51, Christoffer Dall
c.d...@virtualopensystems.com wrote:
+struct kvm_device_address {
+ __u32 id;
+ __u64 addr;
On 22 October 2012 08:51, Christoffer Dall
c.d...@virtualopensystems.com wrote:
+struct kvm_device_address {
+ __u32 id;
+ __u64 addr;
+};
Ben suggested that this should either be a 64 bit id or have explicit
padding. Other than that I think that our current proposed ABI for
ARM
On Fri, 2012-11-09 at 14:45 +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
On 22 October 2012 08:51, Christoffer Dall
c.d...@virtualopensystems.com wrote:
+struct kvm_device_address {
+ __u32 id;
+ __u64 addr;
+};
Ben suggested that this should either be a 64 bit id or have explicit
