On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:47:34PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 02:44:04PM +1100, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:52:46AM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> > > Since commit 42ecaba ("target-i386: Call cpu_exec_init() on realize"),
> > > , commit 6dd0f83 ("target-ppc: Move cpu_exec_init() call to realize
> > > function"),
> > > and commit c6644fc ("s390x/cpu: Get rid of side effects when creating a
> > > vcpu"),
> > > cpu_exec_init() has been moved to realize function for some architectures
> > > to implement CPU htoplug. This allows any failures from cpu_exec_init()
> > > to be
> > > handled appropriately.
> > >
> > > This series tries to do the same work for all the other CPUs.
> > >
> > > But as the ARM Virtual Machine ("virt") needs the "memory" property of
> > > the CPU
> > > in the machine init function (the "memory" property is created in
> > > cpu_exec_init() we want to move to the realize part), split
> > > cpu_exec_init() in
> > > two parts: a realize part (cpu_exec_realizefn(), adding the CPU in the
> > > environment) and an init part (cpu_exec_initfn(), initializing the CPU,
> > > like
> > > adding the "memory" property). To mirror the realize part, add an
> > > unrealize
> > > part, and remove the cpu_exec_exit() call from the finalize part.
> > >
> > > This also allows to remove all the
> > > "cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet"
> > > properties from the CPU device class.
> >
> > This is looking good to me - the v3 re-org has made it quite a bit
> > easier to follow.
> >
> > Whose tree should this go via?
>
> I can merge it through the machine tree, if others agree.
Fine my me, fwiw.
--
David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code
david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_
| _way_ _around_!
http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
