On Tue, Feb 19, 2013 at 09:19:18PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 19.02.2013 19:45, schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> > On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 05:35:06PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
[...]
> >> +static void x86_get_hv_relaxed(Object *obj, Visitor *v, void *opaque,
> >> + const char *name, Error **errp)
> >> +{
> >> + bool value = hyperv_relaxed_timing_enabled();
> >> +
> >> + visit_type_bool(v, &value, name, errp);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +static void x86_set_hv_relaxed(Object *obj, Visitor *v, void *opaque,
> >> + const char *name, Error **errp)
> >> +{
> >> + bool value;
> >> +
> >> + visit_type_bool(v, &value, name, errp);
> >> + if (error_is_set(errp)) {
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> >> + hyperv_enable_relaxed_timing(value);
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> +PropertyInfo qdev_prop_hv_relaxed = {
> >> + .name = "boolean",
> >> + .get = x86_get_hv_relaxed,
> >> + .set = x86_set_hv_relaxed,
> >> +};
> >> +#define DEFINE_PROP_HV_RELAXED(_n, _defval) {
> >> \
> >> + .name = _n,
> >> \
> >> + .info = &qdev_prop_hv_relaxed,
> >> \
> >> + .qtype = QTYPE_QBOOL,
> >> \
> >> + .defval = _defval
> >> \
> >> +}
> >> +
> >> static Property cpu_x86_properties[] = {
> >> DEFINE_PROP_FAMILY("family"),
> >> DEFINE_PROP_MODEL("model"),
> >> @@ -538,6 +570,7 @@ static Property cpu_x86_properties[] = {
> >> DEFINE_PROP_MODEL_ID("model-id"),
> >> DEFINE_PROP_TSC_FREQ("tsc-frequency"),
> >> DEFINE_PROP_HV_SPINLOCKS("hv-spinlocks", HYPERV_SPINLOCK_NEVER_RETRY),
> >> + DEFINE_PROP_HV_RELAXED("hv-relaxed", false),
> >
> > Why not simply make it a X86CPU struct field, so we don't need a special
> > PropertyInfo?
> >
> > The whole contents of target-i386/hyperv.c are getters/setters for three
> > static variables that should have been X86CPU fields in the first place.
>
> Note that I intentionally did not make them properties because of that.
> If the setting is not per CPU, it should not be set through X86CPU.
> I don't know whether it would make sense to make these tunable per CPU?
All the getters from hyperv.c are only used when building the CPUID
tables for a specific CPU, so they can (and should) be handled like
every other CPUID-related field from X86CPU.
--
Eduardo
