> > cpu_exec_init(cs, &err);
> > if (err != NULL) {
> > error_propagate(errp, err);
> > return;
> > }
> > + scc->next_cpu_id = cs->cpu_index + 1;
>
> It appears that scc->next_cpu_id (and hence cpu->id) is some sort of arch_id
> for you. If it is just going to be monotonically increasing like
> cs->cpu_index,
> couldn't you just use cs->cpu_index instead of introducing additional IDs ?
>
> Note that cpu_exec_init(cs, &err) returns with the next available cpu_index
> which can be compared against max_cpus directly.
>
> Regards,
> Bharata.
I don't think that we should mix the id setting and cpu_index for now.
We can't simply set cpu_index before the device is realized. That logic
belongs to cpu_exec_init(). But I agree that cpu_index and id should always
match after a successful realize.
That id / cpu_index stuff can be cleaned up later. We should not treat cpu_index
as a property for now (by exposing it as "id").
David
