On 04/06/2015 10:39, Peter Crosthwaite wrote: >> > I wouldn't mind separating the "CPU" parts of exec.c and moving them >> > under Andreas and Eduardo's mantainership. In fact, Peter, in your >> > patch to move stuff from cpu-exec.c to cpus.c, perhaps you can use >> > qom/cpu.c instead? Then qom/cpu.c can also be the place where we can >> > move the CPU parts of exec.c. >> > > So that relocated code uses conditional compile based on > CONFIG_SOFTMMU. Is that def accessible from common-obj-y code which > qom/cpu.c is? > > My choice of cpus.c was based on the fact that it was obj-y.
Hmm, right---qom/cpu.c is indeed common-obj-y, so it has to be a new file. cpu-exec.c is taken, so I guess I'll move the memory parts of exec.c out to exec-memory.c and leave exec.c for the obj-y part of CPU object handling. We have: - cpu-exec.c: TCG only, arch-obj-y - cpus.c: thread management, obj-y - exec.c: CPU object management, obj-y - qom/cpu.c: CPU object management, common-obj-y And you can move the stuff from cpu-exec.c to exec.c in your patches. > I assume this is all follow up work out of scope of Bharata's code. Do > you have a queue I can rebase my conflicting ENV_GET_CPU work on? No, I don't, because I'm not going to be the one who merge these patches. Sorry. Paolo
