From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51097)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1UsYjX-0000WB-2n
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:29:07 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1UsYjV-0008GQ-Sb
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:29:03 -0400
Received: from mail-lb0-f178.google.com ([209.85.217.178]:51681)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1UsYjV-0008G8-MT
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 09:29:01 -0400
Received: by mail-lb0-f178.google.com with SMTP id y6so1010751lbh.23
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Fri, 28 Jun 2013 06:29:00 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <51CD8E44.2090201@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <1372373098-5877-1-git-send-email-mrhines@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<1372373098-5877-4-git-send-email-mrhines@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
	<CAFEAcA9zm9P+25Mje5tDVBKp9cR2_GrnKGpEsTfTyEP3PnYYEw@mail.gmail.com>
	<51CD8E44.2090201@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Date: Fri, 28 Jun 2013 14:28:40 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFEAcA9nV_i6bHM_nzvYRHk4uoq9RQwp4+kooCCUrrVxnbuHWw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/6] rdma: core logic
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: "Michael R. Hines" <mrhines@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, quintela@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, owasserm@redhat.com, abali@us.ibm.com, mrhines@us.ibm.com, gokul@us.ibm.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, chegu_vinod@hp.com, knoel@redhat.com

On 28 June 2013 14:23, Michael R. Hines <mrhines@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
>> I assume from the PACKED annotations (do we really need both,
>> incidentally) that this is shared with either the guest or
>> with another instance of QEMU. Are there definitely no
>> endianness issues to deal with here?
>
>
> I have ntohl()/htonl() on the protocol headers, but I did not
> add them for the data portions of the protocol.
>
>
> Is endianess for the data a big issue when you are assume the migration
> is happening across identical CPU architectures?

Well:
 * is that a reasonable assumption? (why?)
 * if you try this on some setup where it's not true, do we
   fail helpfully or obscurely?

This is really just my usual "all the world is not an x86"
nudge; I don't know enough about rdma to be able to say what
the right thing in this particular case is.

-- PMM