On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 16:19:46 -0400 "Jason J. Herne" <jjhe...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 09/05/2013 08:01 AM, Andreas Färber wrote: > > Am 01.08.2013 16:12, schrieb Jason J. Herne: > >> From: "Jason J. Herne" <jjhe...@us.ibm.com> > >> > ... > > > > This is what got us into the link<> discussion last time. If we do > > > > for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ipi_states); i++) { > > name = g_strdup_printf("cpu[%i]", i); > > object_property_add_link(qdev_get_machine(), name, TYPE_S390_CPU, > > &ipi_states[i], &err); > > } > > > > then we get said /machine/cpu[n] link<> properties, at a QMP level > > either returning nothing or the canonical path to the CPU object. > > > > On IRC I didn't get an answer of whether it was being done the above way > > because there is infrastructure missing, and a look at object.h now > > confirms that suspicion. CC'ing Anthony and Paolo. > > > > Since object_property_add_link() uses a NULL opaque, my idea would be to > > add a single setter hook argument passed through as opaque to > > object_set_link_property(), which would call it with the old and the new > > value. > > > > The purpose would be to avoid growing our own internal setter API, which > > is disjoint from the QMP qom-set we are targetting at. > > I wrote the code, very close to how you suggested and it appears to be > working when tested with qom-list. I'm still not certain why we need > the ability to set the opaque of object_set_link_property()? > > For reference here is what I did: > > void s390_init_cpus(const char *cpu_model) > { > int i; > char* name; > > if (cpu_model == NULL) { > cpu_model = "host"; > } > > ipi_states = g_malloc0(sizeof(S390CPU *) * max_cpus); > > for (i = 0; i < max_cpus; i++) { > name = g_strdup_printf("cpu[%i]", i); > object_property_add_link(qdev_get_machine(), name, TYPE_S390_CPU, > (Object **)&ipi_states[i], NULL); > } > > for (i = 0; i < smp_cpus; i++) { > cpu_s390x_init(cpu_model); > } > } > > Yep, I know cpu_model is going away ;). Jason, do you have more information how cpu modeling or at least the parameterization will be managed in future? I'm close to finishing a patch that introduces S390 cpu models and need to know all this more precisely. Is there any document or discussion you can point me to. Thanks a lot. Michael >