From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46728) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vv6Ej-00077c-Sv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:12:07 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vv6Ef-0007CH-0V for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:12:01 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:12722) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Vv6Ee-0007By-P5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Dec 2013 09:11:56 -0500 Date: Mon, 23 Dec 2013 16:15:48 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20131223141548.GC21800@redhat.com> References: <20131223115622.GA6490@redhat.com> <52B831AC.8030207@redhat.com> <52B83B87.8020404@weilnetz.de> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-arm: fix build on fedora List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: Stefan Weil , QEMU Developers , Alexander Graf , Paolo Bonzini , Laszlo Ersek , Richard Henderson On Mon, Dec 23, 2013 at 01:41:50PM +0000, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 23 December 2013 13:32, Stefan Weil wrote: > > Am 23.12.2013 13:59, schrieb Peter Maydell: > >> On 23 December 2013 12:50, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >>> Il 23/12/2013 13:37, Peter Maydell ha scritto: > >>>> At a minimum, if we take this approach we should add TODO comments > >>>> to the effect that the NULL terminator and the if() can be removed > >>>> when the first real AArch64 CPU is added. > >>>> > >>>> I think I'd rather put the if (!info->name) continue into the function > >>>> which is doing the looping over the array. > >>> Or just change the termination condition from a check on the array size > >>> to one on info->name. > >> That would take it out of line with the equivalent 32 bit ARM code > >> (and also moxie and openrisc for what little that's worth) and be > >> fractionally more tedious to revert later. > > > What about adding a dummy CPU (which can be removed later)? > > That would be user-visible, which seems a bad thing. > I agree that there aren't any fantastic solutions here; > I think something more or less like Michael's patch with > a TODO note so it's easy for me to take it out again when > I add an actual A57 emulation in a couple of months will > do. This is just a temporary thing since at the moment we > only support -cpu any for userspace and -cpu host for KVM. > > thanks > -- PMM OK, ack my patch then? I'll add a comment /* TODO: remove when we support more CPUs. */