On Sat, Oct 08, 2011 at 12:17:18AM +0530, Prerna Saxena wrote:
> This patch has a small parser which correctly interprets
> qemu-system-ppc64 output for a specific query.
> This code is independent for powerpc and largely does not interfere
> with x86 implementation.
>
> ---
> src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c | 64 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> 1 files changed, 64 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c b/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c
> index 850d46e..5bdb304 100644
> --- a/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c
> +++ b/src/qemu/qemu_capabilities.c
> @@ -181,6 +181,7 @@ static const struct qemu_arch_info const arch_info_hvm[] = {
> { "mipsel", 32, NULL, "qemu-system-mipsel", NULL, NULL, 0 },
> { "sparc", 32, NULL, "qemu-system-sparc", NULL, NULL, 0 },
> { "ppc", 32, NULL, "qemu-system-ppc", NULL, NULL, 0 },
> + { "ppc64", 64, NULL, "qemu-system-ppc64", NULL, NULL, 0 },
> { "itanium", 64, NULL, "qemu-system-ia64", NULL, NULL, 0 },
> { "s390x", 64, NULL, "qemu-system-s390x", NULL, NULL, 0 },
> };
> @@ -473,6 +474,67 @@ error:
> return -1;
> }
>
> +/* ppc64 parser.
> + * Format : PowerPC <machine> <description>
> + */
> +static int
> +qemuCapsParsePPCModels(const char *output,
> + unsigned int *retcount,
> + const char ***retcpus)
> +{
> + const char *p = output;
> + const char *next;
> + unsigned int count = 0;
> + const char **cpus = NULL;
> + int i;
> + do {
> + const char *t;
> +
> + if ((next = strchr(p, '\n')))
> + next++;
> +
> + if (!STRPREFIX(p, "PowerPC "))
> + continue;
> +
> + /* Skip the preceding sub-string "PowerPC " */
> + p += 8;
> +
> + /*Malformed string, does not obey the format 'PowerPC <model> <desc>'*/
> + if (!(t = strchr(p, ' ')) || (next && t >= next))
> + continue;
> +
> + if (*p == '\0' || *p == '\n')
> + continue;
> +
> + if (retcpus) {
> + unsigned int len;
> +
> + if (VIR_REALLOC_N(cpus, count + 1) < 0)
> + goto error;
> +
> + if (t)
> + len = t - p - 1;
> +
> + if (!(cpus[count] = strndup(p, len)))
> + goto error;
> + }
> + count++;
> + } while ((p = next));
> +
> + if (retcount)
> + *retcount = count;
> + if (retcpus)
> + *retcpus = cpus;
> + return 0;
> +
> +error:
> + if (cpus) {
> + for (i = 0; i < count; i++)
> + VIR_FREE(cpus[i]);
> + }
> + VIR_FREE(cpus);
> + return -1;
> +}
>
> int
> qemuCapsProbeCPUModels(const char *qemu,
> @@ -493,6 +555,8 @@ qemuCapsProbeCPUModels(const char *qemu,
>
> if (STREQ(arch, "i686") || STREQ(arch, "x86_64"))
> parse = qemuCapsParseX86Models;
> + else if (STREQ(arch, "ppc64"))
> + parse = qemuCapsParsePPCModels;
> else {
> VIR_DEBUG("don't know how to parse %s CPU models", arch);
> return 0;
Same question about whether we should include 'ppc' in the arch test
here too ?
ACK to the rest of the code anyway.
Daniel
--
|: http://berrange.com -o- http://www.flickr.com/photos/dberrange/ :|
|: http://libvirt.org -o- http://virt-manager.org :|
|: http://autobuild.org -o- http://search.cpan.org/~danberr/ :|
|: http://entangle-photo.org -o- http://live.gnome.org/gtk-vnc :|
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list