Am 29.01.2015 um 17:01 schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> On Thu, Jan 29, 2015 at 03:46:03PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> [...]
>>> @@ -2742,7 +2776,14 @@ static void x86_cpu_apic_create(X86CPU *cpu, Error
>>> **errp)
>>>
>>> object_property_add_child(OBJECT(cpu), "apic",
>>> OBJECT(cpu->apic_state), NULL);
>>> - qdev_prop_set_uint8(cpu->apic_state, "id", env->cpuid_apic_id);
>>> +
>>> + apic_id = object_property_get_int(OBJECT(cpu), "apic-id", NULL);
>>> + if (apic_id == APIC_ID_NOT_SET) {
>> Do we have in QOM a way to check if property was ever set?
>
> I don't believe the QOM property model has any abstraction for unset
> properties.Correct. The only way I can think of is turning it into a custom "dynamic" property, which lets you set some flag in the setter. Using a custom implementation for a static property might also be an option. But as a general reminder, this series does not seem to address some of the modeling considerations I had brought up, so I am again prioritizing work on an RFC for a cross-target QOM topology abstraction (me and Eduardo each had some early x86 patches to that effect iirc) and am still considering this v3 more of an RFC destined at testing hot-unplug on top, which will then be rebased on whatever structure we agree on. Regards, Andreas -- SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Jennifer Guild, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton; HRB 21284 (AG Nürnberg)
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
