On 13/1/26 20:32, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 04/07/2025 12.14, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
No need for accel-specific @dirty field when we have
a generic one in CPUState.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Xiaoyao Li <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Zhao Liu <[email protected]>
Message-Id: <[email protected]>
---
target/i386/nvmm/nvmm-all.c | 21 ++++++++++-----------
1 file changed, 10 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
diff --git a/target/i386/nvmm/nvmm-all.c b/target/i386/nvmm/nvmm-all.c
index f1c6120ccf1..aea61a6fd2a 100644
--- a/target/i386/nvmm/nvmm-all.c
+++ b/target/i386/nvmm/nvmm-all.c
...
@@ -982,7 +981,7 @@ nvmm_init_vcpu(CPUState *cpu)
}
}
- qcpu->dirty = true;
+ qcpu->vcpu_dirty = true;
cpu->accel = qcpu;
return 0;
FYI, this does not seem to compile:
../src/target/i386/nvmm/nvmm-all.c: In function 'nvmm_init_vcpu':
../src/target/i386/nvmm/nvmm-all.c:988:9: error: 'AccelCPUState' has no
member named 'vcpu_dirty'
988 | qcpu->vcpu_dirty = true;
| ^~
s/qcpu/cpu/
Is anybody checking the netbsd builds at all?
3 reviewers and 6 months later.
Should we add a policy for bitrotting untested code?
(I'm currently trying to update test/vm/netbsd to version 10.1, that's
how I noticed it)
Thomas
