From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:38749) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1diKKZ-0004cy-MS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:55:24 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1diKKV-0006Vq-Pw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:55:23 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:54474) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1diKKV-0006UH-JV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 17 Aug 2017 08:55:19 -0400 References: <20170817092225.4264-1-david@redhat.com> <20170817092225.4264-10-david@redhat.com> <1cb3a142-be2d-920e-7b9e-f3ea3df0ad52@redhat.com> From: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2017 14:55:16 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1cb3a142-be2d-920e-7b9e-f3ea3df0ad52@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 for-2.11 09/10] s390x/kvm: move KVM declarations and stubs to separate files List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth , =?UTF-8?Q?Philippe_Mathieu-Daud=c3=a9?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: cohuck@redhat.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com, Aurelien Jarno , rth@twiddle.net On 17.08.2017 14:35, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 17.08.2017 13:40, Philippe Mathieu-Daud=C3=A9 wrote: >> Hi David, >> >> On 08/17/2017 06:22 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> Let's do it just like the other architectures. Introduce kvm-stub.c >>> for stubs and kvm_s390x.h for the declarations. >>> >>> Add a fake declaration of struct kvm_s390_irq so we don't need other >>> ugly CONFIG_KVM checks. >> >> You can use an opaque pointer to avoid that ("bridge" design pattern). >> >> It involves few more changes but looks safer. >=20 > There is maybe even a simpler solution than that, see below ... >=20 > [...] >>> feat-src =3D $(SRC_PATH)/target/$(TARGET_BASE_ARCH)/ >>> diff --git a/target/s390x/cpu.h b/target/s390x/cpu.h >>> index 74d5b35..aeb730c 100644 >>> --- a/target/s390x/cpu.h >>> +++ b/target/s390x/cpu.h >>> @@ -41,6 +41,7 @@ >>> #include "exec/cpu-all.h" >>> #include "fpu/softfloat.h" >>> +#include "kvm_s390x.h" >=20 > Do we still need that? cpu.h should theoretically be independent from > kvm now, shouldn't it? And for the .c files, it's likely better to > include kvm_s390x.h directly there if they require it. It should work if: a) we include "sysemu/kvm.h" in hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c b) we include "target/s390x/kvm_s390x.h" in hw/intc/s390_flic_kvm.c c) we include "kvm_s390x.h" in "internal.h" d) we drop the "KVMState" parameter from kvm_s390_get_memslot_count() (separate patch) >=20 > May I suggest to simply use this instead: >=20 > struct kvm_s390_irq; That also seems to compile just fine. >=20 > No need to switch for a typedef here, you can simply use this anonymous > struct declaration, I think. >=20 > Thomas >=20 --=20 Thanks, David