Re: [libvirt] [Qemu-devel] [uq/master PATCH 7/7 v8] target-i386: CPU model subclasses

Am 31.01.2014 19:13, schrieb Eduardo Habkost: > Register separate QOM classes for each x86 CPU model. > > This will allow management code to more easily probe what each CPU model > provides, by simply creating objects using the appropriate class name, > without having to restart QEMU. > > This also allows us to eliminate the qdev_prop_set_globals_for_type() > hack to set CPU-model-specific global properties. > > Instead of creating separate class_init functions for each class, I just > used class_data to store a pointer to the X86CPUDefinition struct for > each CPU model. This should make the patch shorter and easier to review. > Later we can gradually convert each X86CPUDefinition field to lists of > per-class property defaults. > > Written based on the ideas from the patch "[RFC v5] target-i386: Slim > conversion to X86CPU subclasses + KVM subclasses" written by Andreas > Färber <afaerber(a)suse.de&gt;, Igor Mammedov <imammedo(a)redhat.com&gt;. > > The "host" CPU model is special, as the feature flags depend on KVM > being initialized. So it has its own class_init and instance_init > function, and feature flags are set on instance_init instead of > class_init. > > Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaerber(a)suse.de&gt; > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imammedo(a)redhat.com&gt; > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost(a)redhat.com&gt; > --- > This patch is similar to the one sent by Andrea and then later > resubmitted by Igor as "[RFC v5] target-i386: Slim conversion to X86CPU > subclasses + KVM subclasses", as it doesn't create one new class_init > function for each subclass. > > Main differences v5 -> v6 are: > * Code was written from scratch (instead of using the previous patches > as base) > * I didn't mean to rewrite it entirely, but when doing additional > simplification of the CPU init logic on other patches, I ended up > rewriting it. > * I chose to keep the Signed-off-by lines because I built upon > Andreas's and Igor's ideas. Is that OK? Yes, your From and our Sobs in order is the expected way in this case. If Igor agrees I would propose to drop the textual repetition of this.