On 07/02/2018 19:37, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 11:45:28AM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> On 06/02/2018 21:30, Roman Kagan wrote:
>>> +static SynICState *get_synic(X86CPU *cpu)
>>> +{
>>> + SynICState *synic =
>>> + SYNIC(object_resolve_path_component(OBJECT(cpu), "synic"));
>>> + assert(synic);
>>> + return synic;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> This is somewhat slow, maybe add the pointer to X86CPU?
>
> It is, but it's only used on slow paths. I was reluctant to clutter
> X86CPU with this stuff.
Sounds good then. Maybe add a comment.
Paolo
>>> +void hyperv_synic_add(X86CPU *cpu)
>>> +{
>>> + Object *obj;
>>> +
>>> + obj = object_new(TYPE_SYNIC);
>>> + object_property_add_child(OBJECT(cpu), "synic", obj, &error_abort);
>>> + object_unref(obj);
>>> + object_property_set_bool(obj, true, "realized", &error_abort);
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +void hyperv_synic_reset(X86CPU *cpu)
>>> +{
>>> + device_reset(DEVICE(get_synic(cpu)));
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +void hyperv_synic_update(X86CPU *cpu)
>>> +{
>>> + synic_update(get_synic(cpu));
>>> +}
>>> +
>>
>> Maybe rename to x86_cpu_hyperv_{add,get,reset,update}_synic?
>
> I don't mind, can do.
>
> Thanks,
> Roman.
>
