On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 06:19:58AM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 10, 2014 at 01:23:37AM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> [...]
> > > /**
> > > * X86CPUClass:
> > > * @parent_realize: The parent class' realize handler.
> > > @@ -49,6 +52,16 @@ typedef struct X86CPUClass {
> > > CPUClass parent_class;
> > > /*< public >*/
> > >
> > > + /* CPU model definition
> > > + * Should be eventually replaced by subclass-specific property defaults
> > > + */
> > > + X86CPUDefinition *cpu_def;
> > > + /* CPU model requires KVM to be enabled */
> > > + bool kvm_required;
> > > + /* Optional description of CPU model.
> > > + * If unavailable, cpu_def->model_id is used */
> > > + const char *model_description;
> >
> > Here I wondered why you needed this? For PowerPCCPU subclasses we have
> > reused DeviceClass::desc.
>
> I was not aware of DeviceClass::desc. We can use it instead.
>
> Do you prefer a respin, or an additional patch?
>
Actually we don't even need model_description or DeviceClass::desc yet,
because the code to list CPU models using
object_class_get_list(TYPE_X86_CPU) was moved to a separate patch I will
send later.
I will send a new version of this patch without model_description, then
change the new CPU model listing code to use DeviceClass::desc.
--
Eduardo
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
