On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 06:22:40PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 18.10.2015 um 14:20 schrieb Michael S. Tsirkin: > > On Sun, Oct 18, 2015 at 02:18:31PM +0300, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote: > >> On 10/15/2015 06:12 AM, Zhu Guihua wrote: [...] > >>> - cpu = pc_new_cpu(current_cpu_model, apic_id, &local_err); > >>> + cpu = pc_new_cpu(machine->cpu_model, apic_id, &local_err);t > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> I am not going to "stop" this patch and I do agree with what is trying to > >> do. > >> What I still don't get is if we are "allowed" to directly access QOM > >> object's private > >> fields outside the implementation C file. > >> > >> This is why we have some wrappers in include/hw/boards.h when we access > >> machine's fields. > >> > >> Just wanted to raise the question, other than that (for what is worth): > >> Reviewed-by: Marcel Apfelbaum <mar...@redhat.com> > > > > Andreas, could you ack/nack this patch pls? > > I won't nack it, as putting it into the QOM state now is a good idea. > But I would rather put this into PCMachineState, as current_cpu_model > was PC-only and I'd prefer not to encourage more uses of the old API.
I don't undersand what you suggest. The patch doesn't add any new state, it is just updating the existing MachineState::cpu_model field (just like it is already done by multiple arm, mips, ppc, and tricore machines). -- Eduardo
