On 5/24/19 5:30 PM, Li Qiang wrote:
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com <mailto:phi...@redhat.com>> 于
> 2019年5月24日周五 下午2:50写道：
>
> The boot_cpus is used once. Pass it by argument, this will
> allow us to remove the PCMachineState argument later.
>
> Suggested-by: Samuel Ortiz <sa...@linux.intel.com
> <mailto:sa...@linux.intel.com>>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com
> <mailto:phi...@redhat.com>>
> ---
> hw/i386/pc.c | 6 +++---
> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c
> index 264074489b..01894b9875 100644
> --- a/hw/i386/pc.c
> +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c
> @@ -928,7 +928,7 @@ static void pc_build_smbios(PCMachineState *pcms)
> }
> }
>
> -static FWCfgState *x86_create_fw_cfg(PCMachineState *pcms)
> +static FWCfgState *x86_create_fw_cfg(PCMachineState *pcms, uint16_t
> boot_cpus)
>
>
> For the patches 10/11/12, I don't think this is an elegant solution.
> When we add more data like 'boot_cpus'
> we need add more arguments?
This fonction is called once at machine creation, so there is no
performance penalty. To keep the code modularizable (reusable) it is an
acceptable tradeoff :)
>
> {
> FWCfgState *fw_cfg;
> uint64_t *numa_fw_cfg;
> @@ -938,7 +938,7 @@ static FWCfgState
> *x86_create_fw_cfg(PCMachineState *pcms)
>
> fw_cfg = fw_cfg_init_io_dma(FW_CFG_IO_BASE, FW_CFG_IO_BASE + 4,
> &address_space_memory);
> - fw_cfg_add_i16(fw_cfg, FW_CFG_NB_CPUS, pcms->boot_cpus);
> + fw_cfg_add_i16(fw_cfg, FW_CFG_NB_CPUS, boot_cpus);
>
> /* FW_CFG_MAX_CPUS is a bit confusing/problematic on x86:
> *
> @@ -1762,7 +1762,7 @@ void pc_memory_init(PCMachineState *pcms,
> option_rom_mr,
> 1);
>
> - fw_cfg = x86_create_fw_cfg(pcms);
> + fw_cfg = x86_create_fw_cfg(pcms, pcms->boot_cpus);
>
> rom_set_fw(fw_cfg);
>
> --
> 2.20.1
>
>
