On 12/7/20 12:50 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 11:39, Claudio Fontana <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> As in Subject, >> >> am I understanding correctly that the one or the other is redundant? >> >> Should we keep only one of them? > > I think that perhaps the idea at one point was that we > might have a version of linux-user which used a softmmu > (this would allow better control of the guest's view of > its address space, so guest mmap() to fixed addresses > would work better, for instance). But nobody's ever actually > tried to implement that, so I imagine that if we ever did > we'd find that some CONFIG_SOFTMMU and some CONFIG_USER_ONLY > defines were the wrong way around... > > thanks > -- PMM >
Hi Peter, thanks for the background, indeed I am seeing some of these cases, target/XXX/cpu.c is protecting code with #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY, but the header files in include/hw/core/cpu.h and others use #ifdef CONFIG_SOFTMMU. Ciao, CLaudio
