On Mon, Feb 22, 2016 at 04:32:25PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote: > Hi Bharata, > > Am 22.02.2016 um 06:01 schrieb Bharata B Rao: > > This is an attempt to implement David Gibson's RFC that was posted at > > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-ppc/2016-02/msg00000.html > > I am not sure if I have followed all the aspects of the RFC fully, but we > > can make changes going forward. > > I am not familiar with David's RFC beyond what was portrayed on the KVM > call - this is not what we discussed on the call and I don't like it. > > Further, your commits are pretty cryptic to me. Please improve your > commit messages. > > For example, you add a cpu_type field and you assign it the value > TYPE_POWERPC_CPU. That's not the user-chosen CPU type then, it's a base > CPU type that cannot be instantiated. Either name it cpu_base_type or > fill it in with proper values in one patch - that patch on its own does > not create value and does not explain your claim: > "Storing CPU typename in MachineState lets us to create CPU threads > for all architectures in uniform manner from arch-neutral code." > I'm pretty sure that CPU threads cannot be created from that type, as it > would run into an assertion. > > Next, you make a functionally correct refactoring of cpu_generic_init(), > but I don't understand why you duplicate that code. cpu_foo_init() still > expects things to be realized, so instead of realizing once in a central > place you do it in nine different places. Had you touched all helper > functions we might be able to move that to three places, once for > softmmu, once or twice for linux-user and once for bsd-user. But I > rather get the feeling that you misunderstand those legacy helper > functions, they're for -cpu handling and not to my knowledge used for > cpu-add at all. You should not be using them and then won't need to > touch them in this way. By using them in your supposedly QOM code you > are hiding an object_new() call inside deep layers of helper functions > instead of using QOM native functions such as object_initialize(), > object_new() and object_property_set*(). > > Is "CPU package" some IBM sPAPR term? It is new to me and does not match > -smp precedence, so I really don't think we should be forcing that term > on all architectures for no good reason.
No, it's not an spapr term. *By design* it doesn't match -smp
precedence, as noted elsewhere the point is to not lock the unit of
hotplug granularity to a fixed level of the -smp heirarchy, because
there doesn't seem to be a level there we can pick which works for all
platforms.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
