On 14/10/2016 15:48, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Fri, Oct 14, 2016 at 03:34:17PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: >> On 14/10/2016 15:33, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >>> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 06:24:44PM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: >>>> We have now the cpu_exec_realize() in realize, >>>> so the init part must be in init. >>>> >>>> I've removed the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet field as >>>> unsafe references have been moved to cpu_exec_realize(). >>>> (tested with QOM command provided by commit 4c315c27 with >>>> "athlon-x86_64-cpu") >>>> >>>> CC: Eduardo Habkost <[email protected]> >>>> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <[email protected]> >>> >>> Resending the question I asked in my reply to v1: >>> >>> Instead of creating requiring each subclass to manually call >>> cpu_exec_init()) on instance_init, why don't we move parts of >>> cpu_exec_init()/cpu_exec_realize() code to cpu_common_initfn()? >>> (TYPE_CPU's instance_init) >>> >>> (And if there's any code that needs to be run after the >>> subclasses instance_init functions, we can just add a >>> instance_post_init function to TYPE_CPU). >>> >> >> It's done in PATCH 20/20. >> >> Is that what you want? > > Yes (except that I would have inlined the the cpu_exec_init() > code inside cpu_common_init()). > > I think I expected this to be done in a single step, that > wouldn't require touching code for all architectures three times. > Something like:
Well, I've added several steps to help to review and break nothing. > 1) Move cpu->as, cpu->num_ases, cpu->thread_id, cpu->memory > initialization, and "memory" property registration from > cpu_exec_init() to cpu_common_init() (no architecture code > touched). system_memory (for the "memory" property) is declared as static in exec.c, so we can't move it to cpu_common_init(). Laurent
