On Wed, Aug 30, 2017 at 03:26:53AM -0500, Sergio Andres Gomez Del Real wrote:
> @@ -900,6 +904,9 @@ void cpu_synchronize_all_states(void)
>
> CPU_FOREACH(cpu) {
> cpu_synchronize_state(cpu);
> + if (hvf_enabled()) {
> + hvf_cpu_synchronize_state(cpu);
> + }
The other accelerators put their code into cpu_synchronize_state():
static inline void cpu_synchronize_state(CPUState *cpu)
{
if (kvm_enabled()) {
kvm_cpu_synchronize_state(cpu);
}
if (hax_enabled()) {
hax_cpu_synchronize_state(cpu);
}
}
Why put the hvf code outside cpu_synchronize_state()?
> }
> }
>
> @@ -909,6 +916,9 @@ void cpu_synchronize_all_post_reset(void)
>
> CPU_FOREACH(cpu) {
> cpu_synchronize_post_reset(cpu);
> + if (hvf_enabled()) {
> + hvf_cpu_synchronize_post_reset(cpu);
> + }
Same here.
> }
> }
>
> @@ -918,6 +928,9 @@ void cpu_synchronize_all_post_init(void)
>
> CPU_FOREACH(cpu) {
> cpu_synchronize_post_init(cpu);
> + if (hvf_enabled()) {
> + hvf_cpu_synchronize_post_init(cpu);
> + }
Same here.
These changes are not checkpatch.pl fixes. It's okay to have a huge
patch that just fixes checkpatch.pl issues, but please don't include
other changes in the patch. They should go in separate commits with
proper commit messages/descriptions.
I'll wait for the next revision before reviewing this patch further.
