From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:41224) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QI9V7-0001NA-5e for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 May 2011 21:06:38 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QI9V6-0001tY-5I for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 May 2011 21:06:37 -0400 Received: from exchtp08.via.com.tw ([61.66.243.7]:7329) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QI9V5-0001tS-RG for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 05 May 2011 21:06:36 -0400 Content-class: urn:content-classes:message MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Date: Fri, 6 May 2011 09:06:28 +0800 Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <4DC255A7.1000200@siemens.com> References: <4DC255A7.1000200@siemens.com> From: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] qemu-kvm: Add CPUID support for VIA CPU List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: jan.kiszka@siemens.com Cc: KaryJin@viatech.com.cn, avi@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Hi, Jan Thank you very much for your advice. That's helpful for me. > Hi, >=20 > the subject's tag (qemu-kvm) is misleading. This is actually targeting = > the uq/master patch queue, i.e. the upstream kvm staging area. >=20 If I want to submit a patch for the qemu-kvm-git, should I use = "[QEMU-DEVEL][Patch]..." as the subject? Or there are other rules for = qemu-kvm upstream? If yes, would you like to tell me?. Thanks! > On 2011-05-05 05:03, BrillyWu@viatech.com.cn wrote: > > When KVM is running on VIA CPU with host cpu's model, the > feautures of > > VIA CPU will be passed into kvm guest by calling the CPUID > instruction > > for Centaur. > >=20 > > Signed-off-by: BrillyWu > > Signed-off-by: KaryJin > > --- > > target-i386/cpu.h | 7 +++++++ > > target-i386/cpuid.c | 48 > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++- >=20 > You patch is unfortunately line-wrapped. Yes, I will be careful the next time. > > @@ -721,6 +725,9 @@ typedef struct CPUX86State { > > uint32_t cpuid_ext3_features; > > uint32_t cpuid_apic_id; > > int cpuid_vendor_override; > > + /*Store the results of Centaur's CPUID instructions*/ >=20 > Please format comments like this /* comment text */, ie. with blanks=20 > after/before the /* / */. OK, I will check it. >=20 > > +1050,15 @@ void cpu_x86_cpuid(CPUX86State *env, uin > > uint32_t *ecx, uint32_t *edx) { > > /* test if maximum index reached */ > > - if (index & 0x80000000) { > > + if ((index & 0xC0000000) =3D=3D 0xC0000000) { > > + /* Handle the Centaur's CPUID instruction.* > > + * If cpuid_xlevel2 is "0", then put into the* > > + * default case. */ > > + if (env->cpuid_xlevel2 =3D=3D 0) > > + index =3D 0xF0000000; > > + else if (index > env->cpuid_xlevel2) > > + index =3D env->cpuid_xlevel2; >=20 > Please validate your patch before posting with scripts/checkpatch.pl. OK, I will do it.=20 I found that space is used to code indent other than tab, should I = follow it or use tab instead in my patch? If I use space, there are some warnings when using scripts/checkpatch.pl = to validate the patch. Can I ignore them? =20