On Mon, Jan 20, 2014 at 02:41:07PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > Resend of series submitted on 24 November 2013, that didn't get any reply. Only > change is a trivial conflict on patch 7/7. Question: which tree is the most appropriate to get this in? qom-cpu? kvm? > > This series simplifies kvm_cpu_fill_host() and > kvm_check_features_against_host() to simply use FeatureWord & feature_word_info > loops to fill/check feature words. > > The initial motivation for this was to avoid hacks involving the "host" CPU > class on the forthcoming conversion of CPU models to be X86CPU subclasses. > Instead of requiring the kvm_arch_get_supported_cpuid() results to be stored in > the class struct for "host" (thus requiring KVM initialization hacks). > > Eduardo Habkost (7): > target-i386: kvm_cpu_fill_host(): Kill unused code > target-i386: kvm_cpu_fill_host(): No need to check level > target-i386: kvm_cpu_fill_host(): No need to check CPU vendor > target-i386: kvm_cpu_fill_host(): No need to check xlevel2 > target-i386: kvm_cpu_fill_host(): Set all feature words at end of > function > target-i386: kvm_cpu_fill_host(): Fill feature words in a loop > target-i386: kvm_check_features_against_host(): Kill feature word > array > > target-i386/cpu.c | 89 +++++++++++++------------------------------------------ > 1 file changed, 20 insertions(+), 69 deletions(-) > > -- > 1.8.4.2 > > -- 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
