Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] KVM: Fix compilation on non-x86

[Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@web.de>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1450 bytes --]

On 2012-01-25 18:45, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 01/25/2012 06:40 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> On 2012-01-25 18:33, Alexander Graf wrote:
>>> Commit 84b058d broke compilation for KVM on non-x86 targets, which
>>> don't have KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING defined.
>>>
>>> Fix by not using the unavailable constant when it's not around.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf<agraf@suse.de>
>>> ---
>>>   kvm-all.c |    4 ++++
>>>   1 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/kvm-all.c b/kvm-all.c
>>> index e411d3c..831f39a 100644
>>> --- a/kvm-all.c
>>> +++ b/kvm-all.c
>>> @@ -1305,7 +1305,11 @@ int kvm_has_many_ioeventfds(void)
>>>
>>>   int kvm_has_gsi_routing(void)
>>>   {
>>> +#ifdef KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING
>>>       return kvm_check_extension(kvm_state, KVM_CAP_IRQ_ROUTING);
>>> +#else
>>> +    return false;
>>> +#endif
>>>   }
>>>
>>>   int kvm_allows_irq0_override(void)
>> Yep, thanks.
> 
> Btw, I really dislike the concept of conditional CAP defines. If a CAP
> isn't available, we get false returned from the kernel anyway. And if a
> CAP is architecture specific, we should rather be #ifdefing on
> TARGET_XXX rather than the CAP.

Yes, I hate it generally as well. There are cases (IIRC) where it is
really useless. The use case here is that it allows to disable certain
conceptually generic parts in kvm-all during build time. If it's worth
it, that's a different question.

Jan


[-- Attachment #2: OpenPGP digital signature --]
[-- Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 262 bytes --]