> Changes from v2->v3: > > * Call cpu_remove_sync rather than cpu_remove(). > * Pull latest version of patches from pseries set (v6). Trivial change to > "Reclaim VCPU objects" to fix checkpatch error. > * Add object_unparent during s390_cpu_release to accomodate changes in > Patch 4 "Reclaim VCPU objects." > * Remove a cleanup patch in favor of 2 patches from pseries set. > > ************** > > The following patchset enables hotplug of s390 CPUs. > > The standard interface is used -- to configure a guest with 2 CPUs online at > boot and 4 maximum: > > qemu -smp 2,maxcpus=4 > > To subsequently hotplug a CPU: > > Issue 'device_add s390-cpu,id=<id>' from monitor.
(questions for the bigger audience) For x86, cpu models are realized by making x86_64-cpu an abstract class and creating loads of new classes, e.g. host-x86_64-cpu or haswell-x86_64-cpu. How does 'device_add <cpu class>' play together with the x86 cpu model approach? And with cpu models specified via "-cpu" in general? Or does that in return mean, that "making models own classes" is outdated? Or will some internal conversion happen that I am missing? What is the plan for cpu models and cpu hotplug? How are cpu models to be defined in the future? David
