On Fri, Nov 04, 2016 at 11:45:43AM +0100, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 30.10.2016 12:11, David Gibson wrote: > > spapr_h_cas_compose_response() includes a cpu_update parameter which > > controls whether it includes updated information on the CPUs in the device > > tree fragment returned from the ibm,client-architecture-support (CAS) call. > > > > Providing the updated information is essential when CAS has negotiated > > compatibility options which require different cpu information to be > > presented to the guest. However, it should be safe to provide in other > > cases (it will just override the existing data in the device tree with > > identical data). This simplifies the code by removing the parameter and > > always providing the cpu update information. > > But updating the CPU device tree again and again will also increase the > QEMU start-up time... Considering that guest start up time is sometimes > also an issue, do you think that this code simplification really worth > the effort here?
Given how much it made my brain hurt to try to work the subsequent
changes around that parameter; yes.
If we really have problems with startup time we can revisit this - and
we can probably do better in the context of cleaned up dt building.
--
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
