On Tue, Mar 10, 2015 at 02:22:01PM +0100, Andreas Färber wrote:
> Am 05.03.2015 um 18:26 schrieb Eduardo Habkost:
> > Instead of passing icc_bridge from the PC initialization code to
> > cpu_x86_create(), make the PC initialization code attach the CPU to
> > icc_bridge.
> >
> > The only difference here is that icc_bridge attachment will now be done
> > after x86_cpu_parse_featurestr() is called. But this shouldn't make any
> > difference, as property setters shouldn't depend on icc_bridge.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> > hw/i386/pc.c | 6 +++++-
> > target-i386/cpu.c | 14 ++------------
> > target-i386/cpu.h | 3 +--
> > 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c
> > index ed54d93..66b9fa6 100644
> > --- a/hw/i386/pc.c
> > +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c
> > @@ -995,12 +995,16 @@ static X86CPU *pc_new_cpu(const char *cpu_model,
> > int64_t apic_id,
> > X86CPU *cpu;
> > Error *local_err = NULL;
> >
> > - cpu = cpu_x86_create(cpu_model, icc_bridge, &local_err);
> > + cpu = cpu_x86_create(cpu_model, &local_err);
> > if (local_err != NULL) {
> > error_propagate(errp, local_err);
> > return NULL;
> > }
> >
> > + assert(icc_bridge);
>
> On second thoughts, why are you asserting here rather than setting errp?
> Just add an out: below and goto out, like I did.
>
> On startup it doesn't matter much, but for hot-add asserting would not
> be so nice.
Because not having icc_bus passed as argument would be a coding error.
Also, I have no idea what kind of things would break if we destroy a CPU
after cpu_exec_init() was already called in instance_init.
--
Eduardo
