On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 03:50:34PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 10:33:30 -0300
> Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 03:25:59PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 10:10:27 -0300
> > > Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 04, 201
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 10:33:30 -0300
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 03:25:59PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 10:10:27 -0300
> > Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 03:01:19PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 09:43:41
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 03:25:59PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 10:10:27 -0300
> Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 03:01:19PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 09:43:41 -0300
> > > Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, Oct 04, 201
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 10:10:27 -0300
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 03:01:19PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 09:43:41 -0300
> > Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >
> > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 08:53:22AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 13:54:34
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 03:10:53PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:57:29 +0200
> Andreas Färber wrote:
>
> > Am 04.10.2012 14:43, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> > > On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 08:53:22AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > >> For x86 CPU classes we were going dynamically
On Thu, 04 Oct 2012 14:57:29 +0200
Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 04.10.2012 14:43, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 08:53:22AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> >> For x86 CPU classes we were going dynamically generate CPU classes and
> >> store pointer to appropriate cpudef from bui
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 03:01:19PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 09:43:41 -0300
> Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 08:53:22AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 13:54:34 -0300
> > > Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Wed, Oct 03, 201
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 02:57:29PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 04.10.2012 14:43, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> > On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 08:53:22AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> >> For x86 CPU classes we were going dynamically generate CPU classes and
> >> store
> >> pointer to appropriate cpud
On Thu, 4 Oct 2012 09:43:41 -0300
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 08:53:22AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 13:54:34 -0300
> > Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >
> > > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:24:11PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > > On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:20:4
Am 04.10.2012 14:43, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 08:53:22AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
>> For x86 CPU classes we were going dynamically generate CPU classes and store
>> pointer to appropriate cpudef from builtin_x86_defs in class field for each
>> CPU class and then init de
On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 08:53:22AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 13:54:34 -0300
> Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>
> > On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:24:11PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:20:46 +0200
> > > Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > >
> > > > Il 03/10/2012 17:03,
Il 04/10/2012 08:53, Igor Mammedov ha scritto:
> IMHO from general POV it's not correct to set properties before object is
> completely created.
> But Anthony wants to keep qdev_prop_set_globals() qdev only thing, so could
> we move it from device_initfn() to qdev_init() or some other place then?
On Wed, 3 Oct 2012 13:54:34 -0300
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:24:11PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:20:46 +0200
> > Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> > > Il 03/10/2012 17:03, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
> > > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:38:45PM -0300,
On Wed, Oct 03, 2012 at 06:24:11PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:20:46 +0200
> Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> > Il 03/10/2012 17:03, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
> > > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:38:45PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > >> (Now replying on the right thread, to kee
On Wed, 03 Oct 2012 17:20:46 +0200
Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 03/10/2012 17:03, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
> > On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:38:45PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >> (Now replying on the right thread, to keep the discussion in the right
> >> place. I don't know how I ended up reply
Il 03/10/2012 17:03, Eduardo Habkost ha scritto:
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:38:45PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>> (Now replying on the right thread, to keep the discussion in the right
>> place. I don't know how I ended up replying to a pre-historic version of
>> the patch, sorry.)
>>
>> On Tu
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:38:45PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> (Now replying on the right thread, to keep the discussion in the right
> place. I don't know how I ended up replying to a pre-historic version of
> the patch, sorry.)
>
> On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:36:59PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrot
(Now replying on the right thread, to keep the discussion in the right
place. I don't know how I ended up replying to a pre-historic version of
the patch, sorry.)
On Tue, Oct 02, 2012 at 05:36:59PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
[...]
> @@ -1938,6 +2043,12 @@ static void x86_cpu_initfn(Object *obj)
>
add property accessors for cpuid feature bits defined by
*_feature_name arrays.
Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov
---
v2:
* replaced mask/ffs tricks by plain 'for (bit = 0; bit < 32; bit++)'
as suggested by Eduardo Habkost
v3:
* check if property exists before adding it
* rebased on top of
19 matches
Mail list logo