From: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
To: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
Cc: qemu-arm@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, pbonzini@redhat.com,
eduardo@habkost.net, peter.maydell@linaro.org,
marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com, philmd@linaro.org,
wangyanan55@huawei.com, shan.gavin@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] machine: Factor CPU type invalidation out into helper
Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2023 16:11:42 +1000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <9a97da2f-befe-8b5a-aee6-23bb9212abcd@redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20230714140707.5c7c2402@imammedo.users.ipa.redhat.com>
Hi Igor,
On 7/14/23 22:07, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Jul 2023 15:45:00 +1000
> Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>> The CPU type invalidation logic in machine_run_board_init() is
>> independent enough. Lets factor it out into helper validate_cpu_type().
>> Since we're here, the relevant comments are improved a bit.
>>
>> No functional change intended.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Gavin Shan <gshan@redhat.com>
>> ---
>> hw/core/machine.c | 81 +++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------
>> 1 file changed, 43 insertions(+), 38 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/core/machine.c b/hw/core/machine.c
>> index f0d35c6401..68b866c762 100644
>> --- a/hw/core/machine.c
>> +++ b/hw/core/machine.c
>> @@ -1349,12 +1349,52 @@ out:
>> return r;
>> }
>>
>> +static void validate_cpu_type(MachineState *machine)
> s/validate_cpu_type/is_cpu_type_valid or better is_cpu_type_supported
>
> Is it going to be reused elsewhere (otherwise I don't see much reason to move code around)?
>
The logic of checking if the CPU type is supported is independent enough. It's
the only reason why I factored it out into a standalone helper here. It has
been explained in the commit log. Lets have an individual helper for this if
you don't have strong taste. With it, machine_run_board_init() looks a bit more
clean.
I don't have strong opinion about the function name. Shall we return 'bool'
with is_cpu_type_supported()? Something like below. The 'bool' return value
is duplicate to 'local_err' in machine_run_board_init(). So I think the
function validate_cpu_type(machine, errp) looks good to me. Igor, could you
please help to confirm?
static bool is_cpu_type_supported(MachineState *machine, Error **errp)
{
bool supported = true;
:
if (!machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]) {
error_setg(errp, "Invalid CPU type: %s", machine->cpu_type));
error_append_hint(errp, "The valid types are: %s", model);
for (i = 1; machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]; i++) {
error_append_hint(errp, ", %s", model);
}
error_append_hint(errp, "\n");
supported = false;
}
:
return supported;
}
void machine_run_board_init(MachineState *machine, const char *mem_path, Error **errp)
{
Error *local_err = NULL;
:
/* These two conditions are duplicate to each other! */
if (!is_cpu_type_supported(machine, &local_err) && local_err) {
error_propagate(errp, local_err);
}
:
}
>> +{
>> + MachineClass *machine_class = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(machine);
>> + ObjectClass *oc = object_class_by_name(machine->cpu_type);
>> + CPUClass *cc = CPU_CLASS(oc);
>> + int i;
>> +
>> + /*
>> + * Check if the user-specified CPU type is supported when the valid
>> + * CPU types have been determined. Note that the user-specified CPU
>> + * type is given by '-cpu' option.
>> + */
>> + if (!machine->cpu_type || !machine_class->valid_cpu_types) {
>> + goto out_no_check;
> no goto-s please
>
Ok. Will be dropped in next revision.
>> + }
>> +
>> + for (i = 0; machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]; i++) {
>> + if (object_class_dynamic_cast(oc, machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i])) {
>> + break;
>> + }
>> + }
>> +
>> + if (!machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]) {
>> + /* The user-specified CPU type is invalid */
>> + error_report("Invalid CPU type: %s", machine->cpu_type);
>> + error_printf("The valid types are: %s",
>> + machine_class->valid_cpu_types[0]);
>> + for (i = 1; machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]; i++) {
>> + error_printf(", %s", machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]);
>> + }
>> + error_printf("\n");
>> +
>> + exit(1);
>
> since you are touching that,
> turn it in errp handling, in separate patch 1st
> and only then introduce your helper.
>
Right, it's a good idea. I will have a preparatory patch for it where
the error messages will be accumulated to @local_err and finally propagate
it to @errp of machine_run_board_init().
>> + }
>> +
>> + /* Check if CPU type is deprecated and warn if so */
>> +out_no_check:
>> + if (cc && cc->deprecation_note) {
>> + warn_report("CPU model %s is deprecated -- %s",
>> + machine->cpu_type, cc->deprecation_note);
>> + }
>> +}
>>
>> void machine_run_board_init(MachineState *machine, const char *mem_path, Error **errp)
>> {
>> MachineClass *machine_class = MACHINE_GET_CLASS(machine);
>> - ObjectClass *oc = object_class_by_name(machine->cpu_type);
>> - CPUClass *cc;
>>
>> /* This checkpoint is required by replay to separate prior clock
>> reading from the other reads, because timer polling functions query
>> @@ -1405,42 +1445,7 @@ void machine_run_board_init(MachineState *machine, const char *mem_path, Error *
>> machine->ram = machine_consume_memdev(machine, machine->memdev);
>> }
>>
>> - /* If the machine supports the valid_cpu_types check and the user
>> - * specified a CPU with -cpu check here that the user CPU is supported.
>> - */
>> - if (machine_class->valid_cpu_types && machine->cpu_type) {
>> - int i;
>> -
>> - for (i = 0; machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]; i++) {
>> - if (object_class_dynamic_cast(oc,
>> - machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i])) {
>> - /* The user specificed CPU is in the valid field, we are
>> - * good to go.
>> - */
>> - break;
>> - }
>> - }
>> -
>> - if (!machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]) {
>> - /* The user specified CPU is not valid */
>> - error_report("Invalid CPU type: %s", machine->cpu_type);
>> - error_printf("The valid types are: %s",
>> - machine_class->valid_cpu_types[0]);
>> - for (i = 1; machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]; i++) {
>> - error_printf(", %s", machine_class->valid_cpu_types[i]);
>> - }
>> - error_printf("\n");
>> -
>> - exit(1);
>> - }
>> - }
>> -
>> - /* Check if CPU type is deprecated and warn if so */
>> - cc = CPU_CLASS(oc);
>> - if (cc && cc->deprecation_note) {
>> - warn_report("CPU model %s is deprecated -- %s", machine->cpu_type,
>> - cc->deprecation_note);
>> - }
>> + validate_cpu_type(machine);
>>
>> if (machine->cgs) {
>> /*
Thanks,
Gavin
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-07-18 6:12 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 30+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-07-13 5:44 [PATCH 0/3] hw/arm/virt: Use generic CPU invalidation Gavin Shan
2023-07-13 5:45 ` [PATCH 1/3] machine: Factor CPU type invalidation out into helper Gavin Shan
2023-07-14 12:07 ` Igor Mammedov
2023-07-18 6:11 ` Gavin Shan [this message]
2023-07-24 14:39 ` Igor Mammedov
2023-07-13 5:45 ` [PATCH 2/3] hw/arm/virt: Use generic CPU type invalidation Gavin Shan
2023-07-14 11:59 ` Igor Mammedov
2023-07-18 6:17 ` Gavin Shan
2023-07-13 5:45 ` [PATCH 3/3] hw/arm/virt: Support host CPU type only when KVM or HVF is configured Gavin Shan
2023-07-13 12:46 ` Cornelia Huck
2023-07-13 13:16 ` Gavin Shan
2023-07-13 11:44 ` [PATCH 0/3] hw/arm/virt: Use generic CPU invalidation Peter Maydell
2023-07-13 11:52 ` Marcin Juszkiewicz
2023-07-13 11:59 ` Peter Maydell
2023-07-14 11:50 ` Igor Mammedov
2023-07-14 12:56 ` Peter Maydell
2023-07-17 12:44 ` Igor Mammedov
2023-07-18 10:31 ` Gavin Shan
2023-07-24 15:06 ` Igor Mammedov
2023-07-24 15:14 ` Peter Maydell
2023-07-25 6:46 ` Igor Mammedov
2023-07-13 12:34 ` Gavin Shan
2023-07-13 12:44 ` Marcin Juszkiewicz
2023-07-13 13:00 ` Gavin Shan
2023-07-13 16:29 ` Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
2023-07-14 0:51 ` Gavin Shan
2023-07-14 9:14 ` Gavin Shan
2023-07-13 19:27 ` Richard Henderson
2023-07-14 0:54 ` Gavin Shan
2023-07-13 12:42 ` Gavin Shan
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=9a97da2f-befe-8b5a-aee6-23bb9212abcd@redhat.com \
--to=gshan@redhat.com \
--cc=eduardo@habkost.net \
--cc=imammedo@redhat.com \
--cc=marcel.apfelbaum@gmail.com \
--cc=pbonzini@redhat.com \
--cc=peter.maydell@linaro.org \
--cc=philmd@linaro.org \
--cc=qemu-arm@nongnu.org \
--cc=qemu-devel@nongnu.org \
--cc=shan.gavin@gmail.com \
--cc=wangyanan55@huawei.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for NNTP newsgroup(s).