On 4 October 2018 at 20:52, Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > Changing the object hierarchy based on GDB groups doesn't seem > right, but I don't think it would be a big deal if we have the > board code explicitly telling the GDB code how to group the CPUs. > > If you really want to do it implicitly, would it work if you > simply group the CPUs based on object_get_canonical_path()? > > If a more explicit GDB grouping API is acceptable, what about > just adding a INTERFACE_GDB_GROUP interface name to (existing) > container objects that we expect to become GDB groups? > > I'm not sure which way is better. I'm a bit worried that making > things too implicit could easily break (e.g. if somebody changes > the CPU QOM hierarchy in the future for unrelated reasons).
I don't want things implicit. I just don't want the explicitness to be "this is all about GDB", because it isn't. I want us to explicitly say "these 4 CPUs are in one cluster" (or whatever term we use), because that affects more than merely GDB. thanks -- PMM
