Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> writes: > Am 01.08.2012 20:25, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >> Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> writes: >> >>> Am 01.08.2012 17:43, schrieb Anthony Liguori: >>>> Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> writes: >>>> >>>>> v2: >>>>> ommited moving of x86_cpu_realize() from cpu_x86_init() to pc_new_cpu(), >>>>> to keep cpu_init implementation in -softmmu and -user targets the same >>>>> in single place and maintanable. >>>>> >>>>> v3: >>>>> reuse cpu_is_bsp() rather than open code check if apicbase has BSP bit >>>>> set >>>>> >>>>> tree for testing: >>>>> https://github.com/imammedo/qemu/tree/x86_reset_v3 >>>>> >>>>> comiple & run tested with x86_64-linux-user, x86_64-softmmu targets >>>>> >>>>> Igor Mammedov (2): >>>>> target-i386: move cpu halted decision into x86_cpu_reset >>>>> target-i386: move cpu_reset and reset callback to cpu.c >>>> >>>> Applied all. Thanks. >>> >>> So do you intend to refactor all machines accordingly or leave it >>> inconsistent now? >> >> Are you asking me? >> >> No, I have no intention of touching any other machine. We're not going >> to limit cleaning up target-i386 unless every other machine is cleaned >> up too. >> >> Reset logic should live in the CPU. Seems like a no-brainer to me. > > Yes, I'm asking you, since you replied and applied the series without > responding to my review comment on patch 2/2. You probably applied it > locally before reading my comments but then I would still have expected > a reply on how to proceed in light of those comments:
No, I saw your comment, although I had already decided to apply it by then. > Before applying this, as I've pointed out to Igor at least once before, > all machines do such reset handling themselves. Patch 2/2 that you > applied makes target-i386 break away from that scheme. (I wonder that > Peter hasn't protested yet...) Devices manage their own reset. CPUs are just another type of device. It's completely logically that CPUs handle their own reset. > Anyway, that being the last patch in this series, I see no value in > doing this on its own for target-i386 only. There's obvious value. You would prefer all targets get refactored too. But that's an unrealistic expectation to place on contributors. > So now we should either > revert that patch and later replace it with one that does a touch-all > change across the boards, or someone needs to volunteer (and you agree, > during the Freeze) to refactor all other machines accordingly, which > will take a while to get Acked-bys from machine maintainers... Or just > defer touching reset callbacks until we have the CPU as a device and > then drop the callbacks instead of moving them. Sorry, but no, this is completely unreasonable. Fighting against improvements because you want more to be improved is counter-productive. No step in the right direction is too small. > Note the point of disagreement here is not "reset logic" - it's great > that the APIC BSP fiddling is gone from PC with patch 1/2 - but the > registration of system-level callbacks in cpu.c in patch 2/2. I thought > we all agreed that we want to make CPU a device and have it reset as a > device? No such callback in cpu.c will be needed then and we thus seem > to be, in absence of follow-ups for 1.2, needlessly moving to-be-dead > code around. Not doing that seems like a no-brainer to me. Devices do one of two things today: 1) register a reset callback 2) implement a reset method that is invoked through it's parent bus Since I don't expect CPUs to exist on a bus, it's not immediately clear to me that (1) isn't going to be what we do for quite some time. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > Regards, > Andreas > > -- > SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany > GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
