On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Mon, 17 Sep 2012, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > On 17 September 2012 17:00, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
> > > ---
> > > configure | 63
> > > +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------
> > > 1 file modificato, 37 inserzioni(+), 26 rimozioni(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/configure b/configure
> > > index 7e23309..cea8db0 100755
> > > --- a/configure
> > > +++ b/configure
> > > @@ -3664,6 +3664,31 @@ if test "$linux" = "yes" ; then
> > > fi
> > > fi
> > >
> > > +supported_kvm_target() {
> > > + test "$kvm" = "yes" || return 1
> > > + test "$target_softmmu" = "yes" || return 1
> > > + case "$target_arch2:$cpu" in
> > > + i386:i386 | i386:x86_64 | x86_64:i386 | x86_64:x86_64 | \
> > > + ppc:ppc | ppcemb:ppc | ppc64:ppc | \
> > > + ppc:ppc64 | ppcemb:ppc64 | ppc64:ppc64 | \
> > > + s390x:s390x)
> > > + return 0
> > > + ;;
> > > + esac
> > > + return 1
> > > +}
> > > +
> > > +supported_xen_target() {
> > > + test "$xen" = "yes" || return 1
> > > + test "$target_softmmu" = "yes" || return 1
> > > + case "$target_arch2:$cpu" in
> > > + i386:i386 | i386:x86_64 | x86_64:i386 | x86_64:x86_64)
> > > + return 0
> > > + ;;
> > > + esac
> > > + return 1
> > > +}
> >
> > This is a change in behaviour, isn't it? The old configure code
> > enables CONFIG_XEN based only on $target_arch2, it doesn't try
> > to ensure that the host and target CPU are the same architecture.
> > Granted, that looks like a bug, but it should probably be fixed
> > in a separate patch to this kind of refactoring patch.
>
> That's because the target cpu is irrelevant, QEMU never sees it (it is
> only a device emulator on Xen).
> I have no problems with the introduction of supported_xen_target(), but
> I would prefer if you could avoid $cpu tests.
Reading again what you wrote and the relevant code, I think that you
meant that both host and guest should be x86 machines (rather than one
being ARM and the other x86). In that case I agree and I think it is OK
to make the change in this patch.
Paolo's test supports both i386:x86_64 and x86_64:i386, so I think
should be OK.
