On Mon, 10 Feb 2014 01:23:37 +0100 Andreas Färber <afaerber@xxxxxxx> wrote: > Am 31.01.2014 19:13, schrieb Eduardo Habkost: > > Register separate QOM classes for each x86 CPU model. > > > > This will allow management code to more easily probe what each CPU model > > provides, by simply creating objects using the appropriate class name, > > without having to restart QEMU. > > > > This also allows us to eliminate the qdev_prop_set_globals_for_type() > > hack to set CPU-model-specific global properties. > > > > Instead of creating separate class_init functions for each class, I just > > used class_data to store a pointer to the X86CPUDefinition struct for > > each CPU model. This should make the patch shorter and easier to review. > > Later we can gradually convert each X86CPUDefinition field to lists of > > per-class property defaults. > > > > Written based on the ideas from the patch "[RFC v5] target-i386: Slim > > conversion to X86CPU subclasses + KVM subclasses" written by Andreas > > Färber <afaerber@xxxxxxx>, Igor Mammedov <imammedo@xxxxxxxxxx>. > > > > The "host" CPU model is special, as the feature flags depend on KVM > > being initialized. So it has its own class_init and instance_init > > function, and feature flags are set on instance_init instead of > > class_init. > > > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber@xxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@xxxxxxxxxx> > > --- > > This patch is similar to the one sent by Andrea and then later > > resubmitted by Igor as "[RFC v5] target-i386: Slim conversion to X86CPU > > subclasses + KVM subclasses", as it doesn't create one new class_init > > function for each subclass. > > > > Main differences v5 -> v6 are: > > * Code was written from scratch (instead of using the previous patches > > as base) > > * I didn't mean to rewrite it entirely, but when doing additional > > simplification of the CPU init logic on other patches, I ended up > > rewriting it. > > * I chose to keep the Signed-off-by lines because I built upon > > Andreas's and Igor's ideas. Is that OK? > > Yes, your From and our Sobs in order is the expected way in this case. > If Igor agrees I would propose to drop the textual repetition of this. I'm ok with it, but it doesn't matter since this part is under ---, so it's dropped at commit time anyway. -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list