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

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 31.08.2017 16:35, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:05:56 +0200
> David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> 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...

Me too :)

...So we should be able to safely rename that property. device_add will
later need the reserved "id" property. Hotplugging a CPU would then look
like this: "device_add host-s390-cpu id=cpu2 addr=2".

> 
>>
>> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>> ---
>>  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 :)
> 


-- 

Thanks,

David