Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> writes: > 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.
I have good news! Because this does not compile since 10.1, and we're already in the 11.0 cycle, we can rip it out immediately without doing the deprecation dance. > Should we add a policy for bitrotting untested code? What policy do you have in mind? >> (I'm currently trying to update test/vm/netbsd to version 10.1, that's how I >> noticed it) >> Thomas >>
