On Thu, May 30, 2013 at 06:32:19PM +0200, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > On 05/30/13 13:07, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: > > > /* PC hardware initialisation */ > > static void pc_init1(MemoryRegion *system_memory, > > @@ -122,6 +122,7 @@ static void pc_init1(MemoryRegion *system_memory, > > } > > > > guest_info = pc_guest_info_init(below_4g_mem_size, above_4g_mem_size); > > + guest_info->compat_v1_5 = guest_info_compat_v1_5; > > I believe I can see the advantage of delaying this "compat_v1_5" until > init-done-notifier time: init code gradually building up / rewriting > guest_info doesn't have to tiptoe around conditions. > > Style: would it be worth passing "guest_info_compat_v1_5" as a parameter > to pc_guest_info_init()? Currently you have an _init() function that > partially initializes the struct, and right after _init() returns you > fill in what's still missing form basic initialization.
This seems to be the style used otherwise in this file ... > No more comments for the series. > > Thanks, > Laszlo
