On 31.08.2017 16:35, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 19:05:56 +0200 > David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote: > >> Some time ago we discussed that using "id" as property name is not the >> right thing to do, as it is a reserved property for other devices. >> >> Switch to the term "addr" instead, which matches the definition in the >> PoP called "CPU address". There is no such thing as cpu number, so >> rename env.cpu_num to env.cpu_addr. >> >> We can get rid of cpu->id now. Keep cpu->index and env->cpu_addr in sync. >> cpu->index was already implicitly used by e.g. cpu_exists(), so keeping >> both in sync seems to be the right thing to do. >> >> cpu->index will now no longer automatically get set via >> cpu_exec_realizefn(). For now, we were lucky that both implicitly stayed >> in sync. >> >> Our new cpu property "addr" can be a static property. Range checks can >> be avoided by using the correct type and the "setting after realized" >> check is done implicitly. >> >> AFAIK, s390x only supports cpu_add and not device_add for cpus. So we >> should be able to safely rename that property (no the "id" property >> could properly be used for device_add, which needs an artificial id for >> identification purposes). > > I cannot parse the sentence in the brackets...
Me too :) ...So we should be able to safely rename that property. device_add will later need the reserved "id" property. Hotplugging a CPU would then look like this: "device_add host-s390-cpu id=cpu2 addr=2". > >> >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> >> --- >> hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c | 2 +- >> target/s390x/cpu.c | 69 >> ++++++++++++---------------------------------- >> target/s390x/cpu.h | 5 ++-- >> target/s390x/cpu_models.c | 2 +- >> target/s390x/excp_helper.c | 2 +- >> target/s390x/helper.c | 4 +-- >> target/s390x/misc_helper.c | 4 +-- >> target/s390x/translate.c | 5 +--- >> 8 files changed, 28 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-) > > ...the patch seems fine, though :) > -- Thanks, David
