Re: [Qemu-devel] [uq/master PATCH 7/7 v8] target-i386: CPU model subclasses

Igor Mammedov
2014-02-10T09:48:27Z

On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 01:23:37 +0100
Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de> wrote:

> Am 31.01.2014 19:13, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> > Register separate QOM classes for each x86 CPU model.
> >
> > This will allow management code to more easily probe what each CPU model
> > provides, by simply creating objects using the appropriate class name,
> > without having to restart QEMU.
> >
> > This also allows us to eliminate the qdev_prop_set_globals_for_type()
> > hack to set CPU-model-specific global properties.
> >
> > Instead of creating separate class_init functions for each class, I just
> > used class_data to store a pointer to the X86CPUDefinition struct for
> > each CPU model. This should make the patch shorter and easier to review.
> > Later we can gradually convert each X86CPUDefinition field to lists of
> > per-class property defaults.
> >
> > Written based on the ideas from the patch "[RFC v5] target-i386: Slim
> > conversion to X86CPU subclasses + KVM subclasses" written by Andreas
> > Färber <afaerber@suse.de>, Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>.
> >
> > The "host" CPU model is special, as the feature flags depend on KVM
> > being initialized. So it has its own class_init and instance_init
> > function, and feature flags are set on instance_init instead of
> > class_init.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@suse.de>
> > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > This patch is similar to the one sent by Andrea and then later
> > resubmitted by Igor as "[RFC v5] target-i386: Slim conversion to X86CPU
> > subclasses + KVM subclasses", as it doesn't create one new class_init
> > function for each subclass.
> >
> > Main differences v5 -> v6 are:
> > * Code was written from scratch (instead of using the previous patches
> > as base)
> > * I didn't mean to rewrite it entirely, but when doing additional
> > simplification of the CPU init logic on other patches, I ended up
> > rewriting it.
> > * I chose to keep the Signed-off-by lines because I built upon
> > Andreas's and Igor's ideas. Is that OK?
>
> Yes, your From and our Sobs in order is the expected way in this case.
> If Igor agrees I would propose to drop the textual repetition of this.
I'm ok with it, but it doesn't matter since this part is under ---, so
it's dropped at commit time anyway.