Re: [PATCH v3 12/19] hw/i386/pc: Remove pc_compat_2_7[] array

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

On 08/05/2025 12.40, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> 
> On 8/5/25 09:55, Thomas Huth wrote:
>> On 02/05/2025 20.56, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>>> The pc_compat_2_7[] array was only used by the pc-q35-2.7
>>> and pc-i440fx-2.7 machines, which got removed. Remove it.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@linaro.org>
>>> Reviewed-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.caveayland@nutanix.com>
>>> ---
>>>   include/hw/i386/pc.h |  3 ---
>>>   hw/i386/pc.c         | 10 ----------
>>>   2 files changed, 13 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/include/hw/i386/pc.h b/include/hw/i386/pc.h
>>> index 4fb2033bc54..319ec82f709 100644
>>> --- a/include/hw/i386/pc.h
>>> +++ b/include/hw/i386/pc.h
>>> @@ -289,9 +289,6 @@ extern const size_t pc_compat_2_9_len;
>>>   extern GlobalProperty pc_compat_2_8[];
>>>   extern const size_t pc_compat_2_8_len;
>>> -extern GlobalProperty pc_compat_2_7[];
>>> -extern const size_t pc_compat_2_7_len;
>>> -
>>>   #define DEFINE_PC_MACHINE(suffix, namestr, initfn, optsfn) \
>>>       static void pc_machine_##suffix##_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, \
>>>                                                    const void *data) \
>>> diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c
>>> index 7573b880905..ee7095c89a8 100644
>>> --- a/hw/i386/pc.c
>>> +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c
>>> @@ -241,16 +241,6 @@ GlobalProperty pc_compat_2_8[] = {
>>>   };
>>>   const size_t pc_compat_2_8_len = G_N_ELEMENTS(pc_compat_2_8);
>>> -GlobalProperty pc_compat_2_7[] = {
>>> -    { TYPE_X86_CPU, "l3-cache", "off" },
>>> -    { TYPE_X86_CPU, "full-cpuid-auto-level", "off" },
>>> -    { "Opteron_G3" "-" TYPE_X86_CPU, "family", "15" },
>>> -    { "Opteron_G3" "-" TYPE_X86_CPU, "model", "6" },
>>> -    { "Opteron_G3" "-" TYPE_X86_CPU, "stepping", "1" },
>>> -    { "isa-pcspk", "migrate", "off" },
>>> -};
>>> -const size_t pc_compat_2_7_len = G_N_ELEMENTS(pc_compat_2_7);
>>
>> I'd really appreciate if you could provide clean-up patches for 
>> TYPE_X86_CPU, too. Otherwise I'm pretty sure we'll forget that there is 
>> some clean up possibility here.
> 
> Well TBH it is too exhausting to keep rebasing these patches without
> feedback from maintainers.

Ok, fair, if it's too much right now, it can of course also be done by 
someone else later.

> I'll respin a v4 with Zhao and your comments
> addressed but without touching the TYPE_X86_CPU properties. If
> maintainers prefer to remove dead code in one go -- something I
> certainly understand from a maintainer PoV -- I'll let someone else
> do it, taking over my series.

Since the x86 maintainers seem to be busy with other stuff right now ... I'm 
currently preparing a machine type cleanup pull request that contains 
Daniels patches to automatically disable the old machine types, and my own 
patches to remove the old s390x machine types. If nobody objects, I could 
also add your patches (at least the reviewed ones) there. Michael? Paolo?

  Thomas