On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 04:36:56PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:41:07PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > Resend of series submitted on 24 November 2013, that didn't get any reply. > > Only > > change is a trivial conflict on patch 7/7. > > Question: which tree is the most appropriate to get this in? qom-cpu? > kvm?
Either kvm or my pc tree. Seems unrelated to qom. Paolo - want to review and take this? > > > > > This series simplifies kvm_cpu_fill_host() and > > kvm_check_features_against_host() to simply use FeatureWord & > > feature_word_info > > loops to fill/check feature words. > > > > The initial motivation for this was to avoid hacks involving the "host" CPU > > class on the forthcoming conversion of CPU models to be X86CPU subclasses. > > Instead of requiring the kvm_arch_get_supported_cpuid() results to be > > stored in > > the class struct for "host" (thus requiring KVM initialization hacks). > > > > Eduardo Habkost (7): > > target-i386: kvm_cpu_fill_host(): Kill unused code > > target-i386: kvm_cpu_fill_host(): No need to check level > > target-i386: kvm_cpu_fill_host(): No need to check CPU vendor > > target-i386: kvm_cpu_fill_host(): No need to check xlevel2 > > target-i386: kvm_cpu_fill_host(): Set all feature words at end of > > function > > target-i386: kvm_cpu_fill_host(): Fill feature words in a loop > > target-i386: kvm_check_features_against_host(): Kill feature word > > array > > > > target-i386/cpu.c | 89 > > +++++++++++++------------------------------------------ > > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-) > > > > -- > > 1.8.4.2 > > > > > > -- > Eduardo
