On Mon, Jan 07, 2013 at 02:15:14PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Mon, 7 Jan 2013 10:00:09 -0200
> Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> > On Sun, Jan 06, 2013 at 04:27:19PM +0200, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 04, 2013 at 08:01:11PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > > This will be necessary once kvm_check_features_against_host() starts
> > > > using KVM-specific definitions (so it won't compile anymore if
> > > > CONFIG_KVM is not set).
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > ---
> > > > target-i386/cpu.c | 4 ++++
> > > > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+)
> > > >
> > > > diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.c b/target-i386/cpu.c
> > > > index 1c3c7e1..876b0f6 100644
> > > > --- a/target-i386/cpu.c
> > > > +++ b/target-i386/cpu.c
> > > > @@ -936,6 +936,7 @@ static void kvm_cpu_fill_host(x86_def_t *x86_cpu_def)
> > > > #endif /* CONFIG_KVM */
> > > > }
> > > >
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM
> > > > static int unavailable_host_feature(struct model_features_t *f, uint32_t mask)
> > > > {
> > > > int i;
> > > > @@ -987,6 +988,7 @@ static int kvm_check_features_against_host(x86_def_t *guest_def)
> > > > }
> > > > return rv;
> > > > }
> > > > +#endif
> > > >
> > > > static void x86_cpuid_version_get_family(Object *obj, Visitor *v, void *opaque,
> > > > const char *name, Error **errp)
> > > > @@ -1410,10 +1412,12 @@ static int cpu_x86_parse_featurestr(x86_def_t *x86_cpu_def, char *features)
> > > > x86_cpu_def->kvm_features &= ~minus_kvm_features;
> > > > x86_cpu_def->svm_features &= ~minus_svm_features;
> > > > x86_cpu_def->cpuid_7_0_ebx_features &= ~minus_7_0_ebx_features;
> > > > +#ifdef CONFIG_KVM
> > > > if (check_cpuid && kvm_enabled()) {
> > > > if (kvm_check_features_against_host(x86_cpu_def) && enforce_cpuid)
> > > > goto error;
> > > > }
> > > > +#endif
> > > Provide kvm_check_features_against_host() stub if !CONFIG_KVM and drop
> > > ifdef here.
> >
> > I will do. Igor probably will have to change his "target-i386: move
> > kvm_check_features_against_host() check to realize time" patch to use
> > the same approach, too.
>
>
> Gleb,
>
> Why do stub here? As result we will be adding more ifdef-s just in other
> places. Currently kvm_cpu_fill_host(), unavailable_host_feature() and
> kvm_check_features_against_host() are bundled together in cpu.c so we could
> instead ifdef whole block. Like here:
> http://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@xxxxxxxxxx/msg146536.html
>
> For me code looks more readable with ifdef here, if we have stub, a reader
> would have to look at kvm_check_features_against_host() body to see if it does
> anything.
If CONFIG_KVM is not set, kvm_enabled() is always zero, so the function
would never be called, so I find the ifdef-less code more readable and
obvious.
What I don't know is if we should do this:
#ifdef CONFIG_KVM
static int kvm_check_features_against_host(...)
{
/* real implementation here */
}
static int kvm_do_something_else(...)
{
/* real implementation here */
}
/* Other kvm_* functions here */
#else
static int kvm_check_features_against_host(...)
{
}
static int kvm_do_something_else(...)
{
}
/* Other kvm_* stubs here */
#endif /* CONFIG_KVM */
Or this:
static int kvm_check_features_against_host(...)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_KVM
/* real implementation here */
#endif /* CONFIG_KVM */
}
static int kvm_do_something_else(...)
{
#ifdef CONFIG_KVM
/* real implementation here */
#endif /* CONFIG_KVM */
}
I believe the latter is better, but based on Gleb's comments about
enable_kvm_pv_eoi(), he seems to prefer the former.
--
Eduardo
--
libvir-list mailing list
libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list