On Mon, 6 May 2024 at 10:06, Salil Mehta <salil.me...@huawei.com> wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > Thanks for the review. > > > From: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > > When do we need to destroy a single address space in this way that means > > we need to keep a count of how many ASes the CPU currently has? The > > commit message talks about the case when we unrealize the whole CPU > > object, but in that situation you can just throw away all the ASes at once > > (eg > > by calling some > > cpu_destroy_address_spaces() function from cpu_common_unrealizefn()). > > > Yes, maybe, we can destroy all at once from common leg as well. I'd prefer > this > to be done from the arch specific function for ARM to maintain the clarity & > symmetry of initialization and un-initialization legs. For now, all of these > address > space destruction is happening in context to the arm_cpu_unrealizefn(). > > It’s a kind of trade-off between little more code and clarity but I'm open to > further suggestions. > > > > > > Also, if we're leaking stuff here by failing to destroy it, is that a > > problem for > > existing CPU types like x86 that we can already hotplug? > > No we are not. We are taking care of these in the ARM arch specific legs > within functions arm_cpu_(un)realizefn().
How can you be taking care of *x86* CPU types in the Arm unrealize? thanks -- PMM
