On Mon, Dec 07, 2015 at 05:39:29PM +0200, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
> On 12/02/2015 03:47 AM, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> >PCMachineState will be used in some of the steps of ACPI table
> >building.
> >
> >Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com>
> >---
> > hw/i386/acpi-build.c | 8 ++++----
> > 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
> >
> >diff --git a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> >index 85a5c53..ca11c88 100644
> >--- a/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> >+++ b/hw/i386/acpi-build.c
> >@@ -1644,7 +1644,7 @@ struct AcpiBuildState {
> > MemoryRegion *table_mr;
> > /* Is table patched? */
> > uint8_t patched;
> >- PcGuestInfo *guest_info;
> >+ PCMachineState *pcms;
> > void *rsdp;
> > MemoryRegion *rsdp_mr;
> > MemoryRegion *linker_mr;
> >@@ -1855,7 +1855,7 @@ static void acpi_build_update(void *build_opaque,
> >uint32_t offset)
> >
> > acpi_build_tables_init(&tables);
> >
> >- acpi_build(build_state->guest_info, &tables);
> >+ acpi_build(&build_state->pcms->acpi_guest_info, &tables);
> >
> > acpi_ram_update(build_state->table_mr, tables.table_data);
> >
> >@@ -1916,12 +1916,12 @@ void acpi_setup(PCMachineState *pcms)
> >
> > build_state = g_malloc0(sizeof *build_state);
> >
> >- build_state->guest_info = guest_info;
> >+ build_state->pcms = pcms;
>
> I am not "sold" on keeping a reference to machine in the build_state.
> We can always query current machine using qdev_machine() or something.
>
> Keeping the "guest info" made sense since is used especially for ACPI,
> however the machine has a wider scope. (And not having to keep it
> around is a very good thing!)
I wouldn't mind using qdev_get_machine() if preferred by the
maintainer of that code, but I like to avoid it when possible. To
me, qdev_get_machine() is just a global variable disguised as a
harder-to-understand API.
--
Eduardo
