On Wed, 27 Sep 2017 14:19:56 +0200 Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 23:47:30 +0200 > Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> wrote: > > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 17:48:57 +0200 > > Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> wrote: > > > > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 15:41:34 +0200 > > > Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Mon, 25 Sep 2017 11:47:33 +0200 > > > > Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> wrote: > > > > > > > > > The CPU core abstraction belongs to the machine code. This also gets > > > > > rid of some code duplication. > > > > > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> > > > > > --- > > > > > > > > > > hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.h is also included elsewhere in target/ppc/kvm.c > > > > > but this is already handled by the following cleanup patch: > > > > > > > > > > https://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/817598/ > > > > > --- > > > > > hw/ppc/spapr.c | 4 ++++ > > > > > hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 34 > > > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++------------ > > > > > include/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.h | 2 +- > > > > > target/ppc/kvm.c | 12 ------------ > > > > > 4 files changed, 27 insertions(+), 25 deletions(-) > > > > > > > > > > diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c > > > > > index 0ce3ec87ac59..e82c8532ffb0 100644 > > > > > --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c > > > > > +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c > > > > > @@ -2349,6 +2349,10 @@ static void ppc_spapr_init(MachineState > > > > > *machine) > > > > > } > > > > > > > > > > /* init CPUs */ > > > > > + if (kvm_enabled()) { > > > > > + spapr_cpu_core_register_host_type(); > > > > > + } > > > > why don't we create it statically in hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c > > > > like it's done in x86, i.e. > > > > > > > > static void x86_cpu_register_types(void) > > > > > > > > { > > > > > > > > ... > > > > #ifdef CONFIG_KVM > > > > > > > > type_register_static(&host_x86_cpu_type_info); > > > > > > > > #endif > > > > > > > > } > > > > type_init(x86_cpu_register_types) > > > > > > > > and do the same for host CPU as well? > > > > > > > > > > Hi Igor, > > > > > > Not sure yet why we use dynamic types, but I'd be glad to dig a bit more. > > > > > > > So the problem is that it was decided to make the host CPU class a > > subclass of the host's CPU model, and this requires all the CPU model > > classes to be registered beforehand. > > > > commit 5ba4576b858c0d6056f59abb7e17a2b63f7905f3 > > Author: Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> > > Date: Sat Feb 23 11:22:12 2013 +0000 > > > > target-ppc: Make host CPU a subclass of the host's CPU model > > > > This avoids assigning individual class fields and contributors > > forgetting to add field assignments in KVM-only code. > > > > ppc_cpu_class_find_by_pvr() requires the CPU model classes to be > > registered, so defer host CPU type registration to kvm_arch_init(). > > > > Only register the host CPU type if there is a class with matching PVR. > > This lets us drop error handling from instance_init. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> > > Signed-off-by: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> > > > > I can't think of an alternate way to do this. Any suggestion ? > I don't see from this commit a reason why it can't be done in cpu-models.c > dependencies here are > mfpvr() - which probably should work without KVM Correct. > ppc_cpu_class_by_pvr() - should work fine if 'host' type is being > registered as the last among the other CPU types We have: ppc_cpu_class_by_pvr() object_class_get_list() object_class_foreach() object_class_foreach_tramp() type_initialize() type_get_parent() type_initialize() recursively initializes all parent types, and type_get_parent() aborts if the parent type isn't registered yet, which may happen as long as all type_init() functions haven't been called => ppc_cpu_class_by_pvr() cannot be safely called from a type_init() function. -- Greg
