On Thu, Sep 20, 2018 at 03:45:42PM +0800, Robert Hoo wrote: [...] > > > diff --git a/target/i386/cpu.c b/target/i386/cpu.c > > > index a252c26..0160e97 100644 > > > --- a/target/i386/cpu.c > > > +++ b/target/i386/cpu.c > > > @@ -3670,7 +3670,7 @@ static uint32_t > > > x86_cpu_get_supported_feature_word(FeatureWord w, > > > bool > > > migratable_only) > > > { > > > FeatureWordInfo *wi = &feature_word_info[w]; > > > - uint32_t r; > > > + uint32_t r = 0; > > > > > > if (kvm_enabled()) { > > > switch (wi->type) { > > > @@ -3679,8 +3679,9 @@ static uint32_t > > > x86_cpu_get_supported_feature_word(FeatureWord w, > > > wi->cpuid.ecx, > > > wi->cpuid.reg); > > > break; > > > - default: > > > - r = 0; > > > + case MSR_FEATURE_WORD: > > > + r = kvm_arch_get_supported_msr_feature(kvm_state, > > > + wi->msr.index); > > > > If you move this patch before patch 1/3, this hunk could be part > > of patch 1/3. > > > I'm afraid that if I moved this hunk, because of the dependency, I > would have to move the definition of > kvm_arch_get_supported_msr_feature() to patch 1/3, then in turn, it > used kvm_feature_msrs, I've to put its definition and initialization > function kvm_get_supported_feature_msrs() to patch 1/3 as well. Then > actually, this makes patch 1/3 and 2/3 merged into 1. Would you like me > to do so?
I don't get it. Why would you need to move the definition of kvm_arch_get_supported_cpuid() to patch 1/3, if we change the patch order and apply this patch before patch 1/3? -- Eduardo