Am 28.08.2013 17:22, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 28 August 2013 16:19, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >> Am 21.08.2013 18:45, schrieb Andreas Färber: >>> This simplifies the loop and aids with refactoring of CPU list. >>> >>> Requested-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> >>> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> >>> --- >>> hw/cpu/a15mpcore.c | 5 ++--- >>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-) >> >> Seeing no objection or pick-up from PMM I've applied this to qom-cpu >> now, to move forward with CPU list refactoring. > > I wasn't sure how this patch fit with your larger series > that redoes the a15mpcore/gic/etc (which I think I'm > still waiting for an applyable patch set so I can review > it); I think I thought it was an apply-afterwards thing.
This one needs to go before my qom-cpu-12 series to avoid the CPU loop ugliness. That's in my CPU tree, and seeing no objections I still need to test the p_greetings2.c sample for the CPU-removed case in linux-user and will then merge that before we get more CPU loops. For the MPCore series in my ARM/Tegra tree you wanted an assert for object_initialize(). I am waiting for you to comment on my more invasive/complete series (last part being optional), which would then with any suggested changes go through my QOM tree before I add more uses of object_initialize() that would need to be converted. Based on that I will respin the MPCore, virtio and other QOM series. > Anyway, I have no objection to it. Thanks, want me to add some *-by? Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
