qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 06/11] target/s390x: cleanup cpu number/addre


From: Cornelia Huck
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 06/11] target/s390x: cleanup cpu number/address handling
Date: Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:35:13 +0200

On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:05:56 +0200
David Hildenbrand <address@hidden> wrote:

> Some time ago we discussed that using "id" as property name is not the
> right thing to do, as it is a reserved property for other devices.
> 
> Switch to the term "addr" instead, which matches the definition in the
> PoP called "CPU address". There is no such thing as cpu number, so
> rename env.cpu_num to env.cpu_addr.
> 
> We can get rid of cpu->id now. Keep cpu->index and env->cpu_addr in sync.
> cpu->index was already implicitly used by e.g. cpu_exists(), so keeping
> both in sync seems to be the right thing to do.
> 
> cpu->index will now no longer automatically get set via
> cpu_exec_realizefn(). For now, we were lucky that both implicitly stayed
> in sync.
> 
> Our new cpu property "addr" can be a static property. Range checks can
> be avoided by using the correct type and the "setting after realized"
> check is done implicitly.
> 
> AFAIK, s390x only supports cpu_add and not device_add for cpus. So we
> should be able to safely rename that property (no the "id" property
> could properly be used for device_add, which needs an artificial id for
> identification purposes).

I cannot parse the sentence in the brackets...

> 
> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <address@hidden>
> ---
>  hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c |  2 +-
>  target/s390x/cpu.c         | 69 
> ++++++++++++----------------------------------
>  target/s390x/cpu.h         |  5 ++--
>  target/s390x/cpu_models.c  |  2 +-
>  target/s390x/excp_helper.c |  2 +-
>  target/s390x/helper.c      |  4 +--
>  target/s390x/misc_helper.c |  4 +--
>  target/s390x/translate.c   |  5 +---
>  8 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)

...the patch seems fine, though :)



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]