Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> writes:
> On Thu, Oct 04, 2012 at 09:28:13AM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote:
>> Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> writes:
>>
>> > Il 04/10/2012 15:46, Anthony Liguori ha scritto:
>> >>> > +typedef struct PC {
>> >>> > + DeviceState parent_obj;
>> >>> > +} PC;
>> >> So the general problem with this approach is that it strays from
>> >> modeling hardware.
>> >
>> > It doesn't really; it's a motherboard object, there's no reason why
>> > /machine shouldn't be a Device itself, with a few objects (CPUs, the
>> > i440FX, the IOAPIC, and of course the peripherals) hanging off it.
>>
>> Okay, but modeling a motherboard is different than creating a "PC"
>> object and throwing in the kitchen skink.
>>
>> And I'm not sure that going top-down is the best strategy. I think
>> going bottom up makes more sense (starting with modeling Super IO chip).
>>
>
> So, would you be OK with this implementation if the class were named
> "Motherboard", "set-of-CPU-sockets", or something like that?
I would, but you're mixing up modeling with bug fixing.
There's a very easy way to achieve your goal without dramatic
remodeling.
Just assign APIC ids during CPU creation and make contiguous_apic_ids a
parameter of pc_init1.
You don't need to worry about CPU hotplug. It doesn't exist in qemu.git
and is broken in qemu-kvm.git.
Regards,
Anthony Liguori
>
> (The change on the APIC ID generation logic is not something that
> affects only individual CPUs or APICs, but the fw_cfg NUMA & CPU hotplug
> code as well, that's why I don't think "contiguous_apic_ids" should be a
> property of CPU or APIC objects).
>
>
>> Regards,
>>
>> Anthony Liguori
>>
>> >
>> > Paolo
>
> --
> Eduardo
