On Thu, Dec 17, 2020 at 11:33:57PM +0100, Claudio Fontana wrote: > Hello all, > > On 12/17/20 7:46 PM, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > > From: Vitaly Kuznetsov <[email protected]> > > > > As a preparation to expanding Hyper-V CPU features early, move > > hyperv_vendor_id initialization to x86_cpu_realizefn(). Introduce > > x86_cpu_hyperv_realize() to not not pollute x86_cpu_realizefn() > > itself. > > this seems to fit very well the ongoing work on separating accelerator > specific realize functions; > > related to the previous discussions about the class hierarchies, > do you think that we should have a separate class in target/i386/kvm/ for a > hyperv variant of the kvm-cpu.c? > > Should it be a separate class or a subclass of "kvm-accel-x86_64-cpu" ?
I don't see how a separate QOM class for Hyper-V would be helpful here. What would be the problem you are trying to solve in this case? Note that the Hyper-V features here are just a set of configurable VCPU features that appear on CPUID. This is not a different kind of hypervisor and/or a different kind of accelerator. -- Eduardo
