Re: Why do we have both CONFIG_SOFTMMU and CONFIG_USER_ONLY?

[Claudio Fontana]

On 12/7/20 12:50 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2020 at 11:39, Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de> 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