On Thu, 23 Jun 2016 13:04:53 -0300
Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 23, 2016 at 04:59:28PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 Jun 2016 17:12:43 -0300
> > Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > > The code that loads host-specific information inside
> > > x86_cpu_realizefn() will be reused by the implementation of
> > > query-host-cpu, so move it to a separate function.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > ---
> > > target-i386/cpu.c | 23 ++++++++++++++++-------
> > > 1 file changed, 16 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.c b/target-i386/cpu.c
> > > index aadd0b9..3d3635d 100644
> > > --- a/target-i386/cpu.c
> > > +++ b/target-i386/cpu.c
> > > @@ -1491,6 +1491,20 @@ void x86_cpu_change_kvm_default(const char
> > > *prop, const char *value) static uint32_t
> > > x86_cpu_get_supported_feature_word(FeatureWord w, bool
> > > migratable_only);
> > > +/* Load host-dependent CPU information, when applicable */
> > > +static void x86_cpu_load_host_data(X86CPU *cpu)
> > > +{
> > > + CPUX86State *env = &cpu->env;
> > > + FeatureWord w;
> > > +
> > > + if (cpu->host_features) {
> > > + for (w = 0; w < FEATURE_WORDS; w++) {
> > > + env->features[w] =
> > > + x86_cpu_get_supported_feature_word(w,
> > > cpu->migratable);
> > > + }
> > > + }
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > #ifdef CONFIG_KVM
> > >
> > > static int cpu_x86_fill_model_id(char *str)
> > > @@ -3012,18 +3026,13 @@ static void x86_cpu_realizefn(DeviceState
> > > *dev, Error **errp) return;
> > > }
> > >
> > > + x86_cpu_load_host_data(cpu);
> > this function should be below TODO comment as it applies to moved
> > code.
>
> It was on purpose. The comment is actually about the
> plus_features/minus_features code, that is the hack we want to
> remove after cpu->host_features is fixed.
>
> Placing the comment before the x86_cpu_load_host_data() call
> wouldn't make sense, as the host_features code is now hidden
> inside the function.
>
> >
> > with this fixed
> > Reviewed-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@xxxxxxxxxx>
>
> Considering the above explanation, do you prefer that I keep the
> patch as-is, or move the comment inside x86_cpu_load_host_data()?
I prefer comment inside call as it is related to bug introduced by
moving
env->features[w] = x86_cpu_get_supported_feature_word(w, cpu->migratable);
into x86_cpu_parse_featurestr() for initfn().
plus_features/minus_features code in realize are side affect of above
otherwise they could be converted at x86_cpu_parse_featurestr() time.
>
> (I will not move it before the x86_cpu_load_host_data() call)
>
>
> >
> > > +
> > > /*TODO: cpu->host_features incorrectly overwrites features
> > > * set using "feat=on|off". Once we fix this, we can convert
> > > * plus_features & minus_features to global properties
> > > * inside x86_cpu_parse_featurestr() too.
> > > */
> > > - if (cpu->host_features) {
> > > - for (w = 0; w < FEATURE_WORDS; w++) {
> > > - env->features[w] =
> > > - x86_cpu_get_supported_feature_word(w,
> > > cpu->migratable);
> > > - }
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > for (w = 0; w < FEATURE_WORDS; w++) {
> > > cpu->env.features[w] |= plus_features[w];
> > > cpu->env.features[w] &= ~minus_features[w];
> >
>
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list