On Thu, 31 Aug 2017 16:35:13 +0200 Cornelia Huck <coh...@redhat.com> 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). this patch seems to somewhat conflicting with https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-08/msg06505.html that were supposed to go via machine tree and which I've respinned today to fix conflicts due just merged pull req. Cornelia, Could you put/merge it via s390x tree so that David and I work won't clash again?
