On 09/05/2013 08:01 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
Am 01.08.2013 16:12, schrieb Jason J. Herne:
From: "Jason J. Herne" <jjhe...@us.ibm.com>
Modify s390_cpu_addr2state to allow fetching state information for cpu addresses
above smp_cpus. Hotplug requires this capability.
Also add s390_cpu_set_state function to allow modification of ipi_state entries
during hotplug.
Signed-off-by: Jason J. Herne <jjhe...@us.ibm.com>
---
hw/s390x/s390-virtio.c | 9 +++++----
target-s390x/cpu.h | 2 +-
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-virtio.c b/hw/s390x/s390-virtio.c
index 21e9124..5ad9cf3 100644
--- a/hw/s390x/s390-virtio.c
+++ b/hw/s390x/s390-virtio.c
@@ -54,12 +54,13 @@
static VirtIOS390Bus *s390_bus;
static S390CPU **ipi_states;
-S390CPU *s390_cpu_addr2state(uint16_t cpu_addr)
+void s390_cpu_set_ipistate(uint16_t cpu_addr, S390CPU *state)
{
- if (cpu_addr >= smp_cpus) {
- return NULL;
- }
+ ipi_states[cpu_addr] = state;
+}
+S390CPU *s390_cpu_addr2state(uint16_t cpu_addr)
+{
return ipi_states[cpu_addr];
}
This is what got us into the link<> discussion last time. If we do
for (i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE(ipi_states); i++) {
name = g_strdup_printf("cpu[%i]", i);
object_property_add_link(qdev_get_machine(), name, TYPE_S390_CPU,
&ipi_states[i], &err);
}
then we get said /machine/cpu[n] link<> properties, at a QMP level
either returning nothing or the canonical path to the CPU object.
On IRC I didn't get an answer of whether it was being done the above way
because there is infrastructure missing, and a look at object.h now
confirms that suspicion. CC'ing Anthony and Paolo.
Since object_property_add_link() uses a NULL opaque, my idea would be to
add a single setter hook argument passed through as opaque to
object_set_link_property(), which would call it with the old and the new
value.
The purpose would be to avoid growing our own internal setter API, which
is disjoint from the QMP qom-set we are targetting at.
Ok, you lost me :). I must admit my understanding of QOM is still
limited. Sorry for not keeping up. Why do we need this new hook? The
link would contain a pointer to the correct ipi_states entry right?
What are we using opaque for?
--
-- Jason J. Herne (jjhe...@linux.vnet.ibm.com)
