> > After all the discussions about > > -device-add s390-cpu,id=XX > > > > As substitute/addition in the future for hotplug it is the straightforward > > approach to allow setting the id as property. Nobody knows what crazy new > > hotplug method we will come up with. But doing it the device way with > > properties > > cannot be wrong. And the id is a fundamental concept of a vcpu (cpu-add > > id=XX). > with device_add 'id' is not a vcpu concept but and arbitrary user supplied > string > property owned by Device. But since s390 matches current x86 thread based > model it could be migrated to device_add the same way, for example: > device_add s390-cpu,thread=XX
So should we name the property thread then? Looks like the id property is really special. What do you suggest? > > > > > So I'd like to avoid reworking everything again, to realize later that we > > want it as a property and rewriting it once again. > for s390, the thing about not rewriting everything once again could be > replacing places where cpu_index is used with CpuClass.arch_id(). > arch_id() defaults to cpu_index but you can later override it with > your own id (whatever s390 uses for identifying cpus on baremetal) > so switching to device_add won't break anything. Okay, this way we could get rid of cpu_index later. David
