From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Kt1A4-0005QN-OH
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:27:40 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1Kt1A1-0005OC-4B
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:27:40 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=35850 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Kt1A0-0005Ny-NN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:27:36 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:35073)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <glommer@redhat.com>) id 1Kt1A0-00049p-Dt
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 10:27:36 -0400
Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 12:28:57 -0200
From: Glauber Costa <glommer@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20081023142857.GH18872@poweredge.glommer>
References: <1224771556-11146-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com>
	<1224771556-11146-7-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com>
	<49008318.6050408@us.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <49008318.6050408@us.ibm.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 06/32] split kqemu_init into two
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
Cc: jan.kiszka@siemens.com, jes@sgi.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, avi@qumranet.com, Glauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>, dmitry.baryshkov@siemens.com

On Thu, Oct 23, 2008 at 08:58:48AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
> Glauber Costa wrote:
>> From: Glauber Costa <gcosta@redhat.com>
>>
>> we separate kqemu_init() into a part that depends on env,
>> and other that does not. The later can be initialized earlier
>>   
>
> This patch seems harmless but I can't reasonably infer why this change  
> is necessary.  What's the advantage of splitting the initialization into  
> two parts?
>
the previous version receives a CPUState parameter. If we do that, we never 
give the accelerator the chance to care for its own CPUState. So that's the reason
behind the split: First, we kickstart the accelerator, which can suceed / fail.
Later on, we overwrite the cpu_env initialization to give the accel a chance.

> Regards,
>
> Anthony Liguori
>