On Thu, Oct 15, 2026 at 1:22 AM Pierrick Bouvier
<[email protected]> wrote:
>
> On 10/14/2026 2:41 AM, Yonggang Luo wrote:
> > Done by merge virtio_mem_legacy_guests_properties into
> > virtio_mem_properties.
> > As we already have vmem->unplugged_inaccessible handle in
> > virtio_mem_device_realize
> > So we can reject the wrong option in virtio_mem_device_realize, then the
> > call
> > target_info() in class_init no need anymore.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Yonggang Luo <[email protected]>
> > ---
> > hw/virtio/virtio-mem.c | 12 +++++-------
> > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/virtio/virtio-mem.c b/hw/virtio/virtio-mem.c
> > index a4110d61312..81e2192c2fb 100644
> > --- a/hw/virtio/virtio-mem.c
> > +++ b/hw/virtio/virtio-mem.c
> > @@ -879,7 +879,11 @@ static void virtio_mem_device_realize(DeviceState
> > *dev, Error **errp)
> > break;
> > }
> > } else {
> > - vmem->unplugged_inaccessible = ON_OFF_AUTO_ON;
> > + if (vmem->unplugged_inaccessible != ON_OFF_AUTO_ON) {
> > + error_setg(errp, "'%s' must be 'on' on non-x86 targets",
> > + VIRTIO_MEM_UNPLUGGED_INACCESSIBLE_PROP);
> > + return;
> > + }
> > }
> >
> > if (vmem->dynamic_memslots &&
> > @@ -1568,9 +1572,6 @@ static const Property virtio_mem_properties[] = {
> > early_migration, true),
> > DEFINE_PROP_BOOL(VIRTIO_MEM_DYNAMIC_MEMSLOTS_PROP, VirtIOMEM,
> > dynamic_memslots, false),
> > -};
> > -
> > -static const Property virtio_mem_legacy_guests_properties[] = {
> > DEFINE_PROP_ON_OFF_AUTO(VIRTIO_MEM_UNPLUGGED_INACCESSIBLE_PROP,
> > VirtIOMEM,
> > unplugged_inaccessible, ON_OFF_AUTO_ON),
> > };
> > @@ -1635,9 +1636,6 @@ static void virtio_mem_class_init(ObjectClass *klass,
> > const void *data)
> > RamDiscardSourceClass *rdsc = RAM_DISCARD_SOURCE_CLASS(klass);
> >
> > device_class_set_props(dc, virtio_mem_properties);
> > - if (virtio_mem_has_legacy_guests()) {
> > - device_class_set_props(dc, virtio_mem_legacy_guests_properties);
> > - }
> > dc->vmsd = &vmstate_virtio_mem;
> >
> > set_bit(DEVICE_CATEGORY_MISC, dc->categories);
>
> Not sure what happened with the sending, but it seems like this series
> has been split in two threads.
I accidentally broke the sending procedure, till I found it's too
late, what I am confused about is why when I recover to send
the rest, it's not in the same threads. I am using git-publish.
--
此致
礼
罗勇刚
Yours
sincerely,
Yonggang Luo
