Re: [PATCH] hw/arm/virt: Remove virt machine state 'smp_cpus'

[Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>]

On Wed, 16 Dec 2020 at 06:44, Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Tue, Dec 15, 2020 at 06:20:48PM +0000, David Edmondson wrote:
> > On Tuesday, 2020-12-15 at 18:48:15 +01, Andrew Jones wrote:
> >
> > > virt machine's 'smp_cpus' and machine->smp.cpus must always have the
> > > same value. And, anywhere we have virt machine state we have machine
> > > state. So let's remove the redundancy. Also, to make it easier to see
> > > that machine->smp is the true source for "smp_cpus" and "max_cpus",
> > > avoid passing them in function parameters, preferring instead to get
> > > them from the state.

> > >  static void fdt_add_cpu_nodes(const VirtMachineState *vms)
> > >  {
> > > -    int cpu;
> > > -    int addr_cells = 1;
> > >      const MachineState *ms = MACHINE(vms);
> > > +    int smp_cpus = ms->smp.cpus, cpu;
> >
> > Is it house-style to have initialised and un-initialised local variables
> > declared on the same line?
> >
>
> checkpatch.pl doesn't complain and a grep of qemu shows hundreds of other
> examples. That said, I only see one other example in hw/arm/virt.c, so if
> we'd rather avoid it, I'll repost.

I think this is one of those things where the style guide doesn't
say anything, so it comes down to individual developer preference.
Personally I find declaring an uninitialized local on the same
line and after an initialized local is a bit confusing to read
so I've tweaked the patch, but it's not a big deal either way.

Applied to target-arm.next, thanks.

-- PMM