Am 5. Oktober 2023 07:06:38 UTC schrieb "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé"
<phi...@linaro.org>:
>Hi Bernhard,
>
>On 4/10/23 01:21, Bernhard Beschow wrote:
>> Am 3. Oktober 2023 08:27:25 UTC schrieb "Philippe Mathieu-Daudé"
>> <phi...@linaro.org>:
>>> apic_get_class() isn't supposed to fail. kvm_apic_realize() is
>>> DeviceRealize() handler, which can fail. Defer the error check
>>> to the latter.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org>
>>> ---
>>> hw/i386/kvm/apic.c | 5 +++++
>>> target/i386/cpu-sysemu.c | 8 --------
>>> 2 files changed, 5 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
>
> "kvm-apic-msi", APIC_SPACE_SIZE);
>>>
>>> diff --git a/target/i386/cpu-sysemu.c b/target/i386/cpu-sysemu.c
>>> index 2375e48178..6a228c9178 100644
>>> --- a/target/i386/cpu-sysemu.c
>>> +++ b/target/i386/cpu-sysemu.c
>>> @@ -253,10 +253,6 @@ APICCommonClass *apic_get_class(Error **errp)
>>>
>>> /* TODO: in-kernel irqchip for hvf */
>>> if (kvm_enabled()) {
>>> - if (!kvm_irqchip_in_kernel()) {
>>> - error_setg(errp, "KVM does not support userspace APIC");
>>> - return NULL;
>>> - }
>>> apic_type = "kvm-apic";
>>> } else if (xen_enabled()) {
>>> apic_type = "xen-apic";
>>> @@ -272,10 +268,6 @@ void x86_cpu_apic_create(X86CPU *cpu, Error **errp)
>>> APICCommonState *apic;
>>> APICCommonClass *apic_class = apic_get_class(errp);
>>>
>>> - if (!apic_class) {
>>> - return;
>>> - }
>>> -
>>
>> Did you intend to remove these lines in the next commit? There you're
>> writing to simplify x86_cpu_apic_create() which you're doing here already.
>
>No: apic_get_class() doesn't return NULL anymore, so this is dead code.
Yes, makes sense.
Maybe move "It can't return NULL neither, so simplify x86_cpu_apic_create()."
of the next commit message here? There, you're applying the same change to
various functions but point out x86_cpu_apic_create() explicitly which is the
part I was confused about. Though this may not warrant a respin.
Best regards,
Bernhard
>
>>
>> Best regards,
>> Bernhard
