[PATCH 0/2] ppc: Rename power5+ and power7+ for the new QOM naming rules
We can get rid of the "power5+" / "power7+" hack in qom/object.c by using CPU aliases for those names instead (first patch). I think in the long run, we should get rid of the names with a "+" in it completely, so the second patch suggests to deprecate those, but I'd also be fine if we keep the aliases around, so in that case please ignore the second patch. Thomas Huth (2): target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming rules docs/about: Deprecate the old "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names docs/about/deprecated.rst | 9 +++++++++ hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 4 ++-- qom/object.c | 4 ---- target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 10 ++++++---- 4 files changed, 17 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) -- 2.43.0
The character "+" is now forbidden in QOM device names (see commit b447378e1217 - "Limit type names to alphanumerical and some few special characters"). For the "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names, there is currently a hack in type_name_is_valid() to still allow them for compatibility reasons. However, there is a much nicer solution for this: Simply use aliases! This way we can still support the old names without the need for the ugly hack in type_name_is_valid(). Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> --- hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 4 ++-- qom/object.c | 4 ---- target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 10 ++++++---- 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-) diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c index 5aa1ed474a..214b7a03d8 100644 --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c @@ -389,9 +389,9 @@ static const TypeInfo spapr_cpu_core_type_infos[] = { DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970_v2.2"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.0"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.1"), - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5+_v2.1"), + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5plus_v2.1"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7_v2.3"), - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7+_v2.1"), + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7plus_v2.1"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8_v2.0"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8e_v2.1"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8nvl_v1.0"), diff --git a/qom/object.c b/qom/object.c index 654e1afaf2..2c4c64d2b6 100644 --- a/qom/object.c +++ b/qom/object.c @@ -160,10 +160,6 @@ static bool type_name_is_valid(const char *name) /* Allow some legacy names with '+' in it for compatibility reasons */ if (name[plen] == '+') { - if (plen == 6 && g_str_has_prefix(name, "power")) { - /* Allow "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names*/ - return true; - } if (plen >= 17 && g_str_has_prefix(name, "Sun-UltraSparc-I")) { /* Allow "Sun-UltraSparc-IV+" and "Sun-UltraSparc-IIIi+" */ return true; diff --git a/target/ppc/cpu-models.c b/target/ppc/cpu-models.c index 7dbb47de64..6d854bb023 100644 --- a/target/ppc/cpu-models.c +++ b/target/ppc/cpu-models.c @@ -716,11 +716,11 @@ "PowerPC 970MP v1.0") POWERPC_DEF("970mp_v1.1", CPU_POWERPC_970MP_v11, 970, "PowerPC 970MP v1.1") - POWERPC_DEF("power5+_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER5P_v21, POWER5P, + POWERPC_DEF("power5plus_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER5P_v21, POWER5P, "POWER5+ v2.1") POWERPC_DEF("power7_v2.3", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v23, POWER7, "POWER7 v2.3") - POWERPC_DEF("power7+_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21, POWER7, + POWERPC_DEF("power7plus_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21, POWER7, "POWER7+ v2.1") POWERPC_DEF("power8e_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER8E_v21, POWER8, "POWER8E v2.1") @@ -902,10 +902,12 @@ PowerPCCPUAlias ppc_cpu_aliases[] = { { "970", "970_v2.2" }, { "970fx", "970fx_v3.1" }, { "970mp", "970mp_v1.1" }, - { "power5+", "power5+_v2.1" }, + { "power5+", "power5plus_v2.1" }, + { "power5+_v2.1", "power5plus_v2.1" }, { "power5gs", "power5+_v2.1" }, { "power7", "power7_v2.3" }, - { "power7+", "power7+_v2.1" }, + { "power7+", "power7plus_v2.1" }, + { "power7+_v2.1", "power7plus_v2.1" }, { "power8e", "power8e_v2.1" }, { "power8", "power8_v2.0" }, { "power8nvl", "power8nvl_v1.0" }, -- 2.43.0
On 1/11/24 17:46, Thomas Huth wrote:
The character "+" is now forbidden in QOM device names (see commit b447378e1217 - "Limit type names to alphanumerical and some few special characters"). For the "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names, there is currently a hack in type_name_is_valid() to still allow them for compatibility reasons. However, there is a much nicer solution for this: Simply use aliases! This way we can still support the old names without the need for the ugly hack in type_name_is_valid().
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>
Reviewed-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com> Thanks, C.
On 1/11/24 22:16, Thomas Huth wrote:
The character "+" is now forbidden in QOM device names (see commit b447378e1217 - "Limit type names to alphanumerical and some few special characters"). For the "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names, there is currently a hack in type_name_is_valid() to still allow them for compatibility reasons. However, there is a much nicer solution for this: Simply use aliases! This way we can still support the old names without the need for the ugly hack in type_name_is_valid().
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> --- hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 4 ++-- qom/object.c | 4 ---- target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 10 ++++++---- 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c index 5aa1ed474a..214b7a03d8 100644 --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c @@ -389,9 +389,9 @@ static const TypeInfo spapr_cpu_core_type_infos[] = { DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970_v2.2"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.0"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.1"), - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5+_v2.1"), + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5plus_v2.1"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7_v2.3"), - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7+_v2.1"), + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7plus_v2.1"),
Will using Power5x, Power7x be a better naming than using 'plus' suffix ? Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Harsh Prateek Bora <harshpb@linux.ibm.com>
DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8_v2.0"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8e_v2.1"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power8nvl_v1.0"), diff --git a/qom/object.c b/qom/object.c index 654e1afaf2..2c4c64d2b6 100644 --- a/qom/object.c +++ b/qom/object.c @@ -160,10 +160,6 @@ static bool type_name_is_valid(const char *name)
/* Allow some legacy names with '+' in it for compatibility reasons */ if (name[plen] == '+') { - if (plen == 6 && g_str_has_prefix(name, "power")) { - /* Allow "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names*/ - return true; - } if (plen >= 17 && g_str_has_prefix(name, "Sun-UltraSparc-I")) { /* Allow "Sun-UltraSparc-IV+" and "Sun-UltraSparc-IIIi+" */ return true; diff --git a/target/ppc/cpu-models.c b/target/ppc/cpu-models.c index 7dbb47de64..6d854bb023 100644 --- a/target/ppc/cpu-models.c +++ b/target/ppc/cpu-models.c @@ -716,11 +716,11 @@ "PowerPC 970MP v1.0") POWERPC_DEF("970mp_v1.1", CPU_POWERPC_970MP_v11, 970, "PowerPC 970MP v1.1") - POWERPC_DEF("power5+_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER5P_v21, POWER5P, + POWERPC_DEF("power5plus_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER5P_v21, POWER5P, "POWER5+ v2.1") POWERPC_DEF("power7_v2.3", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7_v23, POWER7, "POWER7 v2.3") - POWERPC_DEF("power7+_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21, POWER7, + POWERPC_DEF("power7plus_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER7P_v21, POWER7, "POWER7+ v2.1") POWERPC_DEF("power8e_v2.1", CPU_POWERPC_POWER8E_v21, POWER8, "POWER8E v2.1") @@ -902,10 +902,12 @@ PowerPCCPUAlias ppc_cpu_aliases[] = { { "970", "970_v2.2" }, { "970fx", "970fx_v3.1" }, { "970mp", "970mp_v1.1" }, - { "power5+", "power5+_v2.1" }, + { "power5+", "power5plus_v2.1" }, + { "power5+_v2.1", "power5plus_v2.1" }, { "power5gs", "power5+_v2.1" }, { "power7", "power7_v2.3" }, - { "power7+", "power7+_v2.1" }, + { "power7+", "power7plus_v2.1" }, + { "power7+_v2.1", "power7plus_v2.1" }, { "power8e", "power8e_v2.1" }, { "power8", "power8_v2.0" }, { "power8nvl", "power8nvl_v1.0" },
On 12/01/2024 05.57, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
On 1/11/24 22:16, Thomas Huth wrote:
The character "+" is now forbidden in QOM device names (see commit b447378e1217 - "Limit type names to alphanumerical and some few special characters"). For the "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names, there is currently a hack in type_name_is_valid() to still allow them for compatibility reasons. However, there is a much nicer solution for this: Simply use aliases! This way we can still support the old names without the need for the ugly hack in type_name_is_valid().
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> --- hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 4 ++-- qom/object.c | 4 ---- target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 10 ++++++---- 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c index 5aa1ed474a..214b7a03d8 100644 --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c @@ -389,9 +389,9 @@ static const TypeInfo spapr_cpu_core_type_infos[] = { DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970_v2.2"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.0"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.1"), - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5+_v2.1"), + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5plus_v2.1"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7_v2.3"), - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7+_v2.1"), + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7plus_v2.1"),
Will using Power5x, Power7x be a better naming than using 'plus' suffix ?
The "x" looks like a placeholder to me, so it could be confused with power50, power51, power52, etc. ...? But actually, I was thinking about using "power5p" and "power7p" first, so if the whole "plus" looks too long for you, would "p" be an option instead?
Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Harsh Prateek Bora <harshpb@linux.ibm.com>
Thanks! Thomas
On 1/12/24 10:42, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 12/01/2024 05.57, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
On 1/11/24 22:16, Thomas Huth wrote:
The character "+" is now forbidden in QOM device names (see commit b447378e1217 - "Limit type names to alphanumerical and some few special characters"). For the "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names, there is currently a hack in type_name_is_valid() to still allow them for compatibility reasons. However, there is a much nicer solution for this: Simply use aliases! This way we can still support the old names without the need for the ugly hack in type_name_is_valid().
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> --- hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 4 ++-- qom/object.c | 4 ---- target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 10 ++++++---- 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c index 5aa1ed474a..214b7a03d8 100644 --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c @@ -389,9 +389,9 @@ static const TypeInfo spapr_cpu_core_type_infos[] = { DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970_v2.2"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.0"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.1"), - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5+_v2.1"), + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5plus_v2.1"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7_v2.3"), - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7+_v2.1"), + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7plus_v2.1"),
Will using Power5x, Power7x be a better naming than using 'plus' suffix ?
The "x" looks like a placeholder to me, so it could be confused with power50, power51, power52, etc. ...? But actually, I was thinking about using "power5p" and "power7p" first, so if the whole "plus" looks too long for you, would "p" be an option instead?
Hmm .. I would certainly vote for 'p' over 'plus'. regards, Harsh
Otherwise, Reviewed-by: Harsh Prateek Bora <harshpb@linux.ibm.com>
Thanks!
Thomas
On 12/01/2024 06.21, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
On 1/12/24 10:42, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 12/01/2024 05.57, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
On 1/11/24 22:16, Thomas Huth wrote:
The character "+" is now forbidden in QOM device names (see commit b447378e1217 - "Limit type names to alphanumerical and some few special characters"). For the "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names, there is currently a hack in type_name_is_valid() to still allow them for compatibility reasons. However, there is a much nicer solution for this: Simply use aliases! This way we can still support the old names without the need for the ugly hack in type_name_is_valid().
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> --- hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 4 ++-- qom/object.c | 4 ---- target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 10 ++++++---- 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c index 5aa1ed474a..214b7a03d8 100644 --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c @@ -389,9 +389,9 @@ static const TypeInfo spapr_cpu_core_type_infos[] = { DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970_v2.2"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.0"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.1"), - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5+_v2.1"), + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5plus_v2.1"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7_v2.3"), - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7+_v2.1"), + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7plus_v2.1"),
Will using Power5x, Power7x be a better naming than using 'plus' suffix ?
The "x" looks like a placeholder to me, so it could be confused with power50, power51, power52, etc. ...? But actually, I was thinking about using "power5p" and "power7p" first, so if the whole "plus" looks too long for you, would "p" be an option instead?
Hmm .. I would certainly vote for 'p' over 'plus'.
Ok, I don't mind either way ... does anybody else have any preferences? Thomas
On 1/12/24 11:55, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 12/01/2024 06.21, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
On 1/12/24 10:42, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 12/01/2024 05.57, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
On 1/11/24 22:16, Thomas Huth wrote:
The character "+" is now forbidden in QOM device names (see commit b447378e1217 - "Limit type names to alphanumerical and some few special characters"). For the "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names, there is currently a hack in type_name_is_valid() to still allow them for compatibility reasons. However, there is a much nicer solution for this: Simply use aliases! This way we can still support the old names without the need for the ugly hack in type_name_is_valid().
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> --- hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c | 4 ++-- qom/object.c | 4 ---- target/ppc/cpu-models.c | 10 ++++++---- 3 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 10 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c index 5aa1ed474a..214b7a03d8 100644 --- a/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr_cpu_core.c @@ -389,9 +389,9 @@ static const TypeInfo spapr_cpu_core_type_infos[] = { DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970_v2.2"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.0"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("970mp_v1.1"), - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5+_v2.1"), + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power5plus_v2.1"), DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7_v2.3"), - DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7+_v2.1"), + DEFINE_SPAPR_CPU_CORE_TYPE("power7plus_v2.1"),
Will using Power5x, Power7x be a better naming than using 'plus' suffix ?
The "x" looks like a placeholder to me, so it could be confused with power50, power51, power52, etc. ...? But actually, I was thinking about using "power5p" and "power7p" first, so if the whole "plus" looks too long for you, would "p" be an option instead?
Hmm .. I would certainly vote for 'p' over 'plus'.
Ok, I don't mind either way ... does anybody else have any preferences?
p is fine. Thanks, C.
On 12/1/24 12:33, Cédric Le Goater wrote:
On 1/12/24 11:55, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 12/01/2024 06.21, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
Hmm .. I would certainly vote for 'p' over 'plus'.
Ok, I don't mind either way ... does anybody else have any preferences?
p is fine.
We also use 'p' for '+' / 'plus' on ARM Raspberry Pi: $ qemu-system-aarch64 -M help | grep -F raspi raspi0 Raspberry Pi Zero (revision 1.2) raspi1ap Raspberry Pi A+ (revision 1.1) raspi2b Raspberry Pi 2B (revision 1.1) raspi3ap Raspberry Pi 3A+ (revision 1.0) raspi3b Raspberry Pi 3B (revision 1.2)
For consistency we should drop the names with a "+" in it in the long run. Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> --- docs/about/deprecated.rst | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+) diff --git a/docs/about/deprecated.rst b/docs/about/deprecated.rst index 2e15040246..7fdd2239b4 100644 --- a/docs/about/deprecated.rst +++ b/docs/about/deprecated.rst @@ -245,6 +245,15 @@ Nios II CPU (since 8.2) The Nios II architecture is orphan. The ``nios2`` guest CPU support is deprecated and will be removed in a future version of QEMU. +``power5+`` and ``power7+`` CPU names (since 9.0) +''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' + +The character "+" in device (and thus also CPU) names is not allowed +in the QEMU object model anymore. ``power5+``, ``power5+_v2.1``, +``power7+`` and ``power7+_v2.1`` are currently still supported via +an alias, but for consistency these will get removed in a future +release, too. Use ``power5plus_v2.1`` and ``power7plus_v2.1`` instead. + System emulator machines ------------------------ -- 2.43.0
On 1/11/24 17:46, Thomas Huth wrote:
For consistency we should drop the names with a "+" in it in the long run.
Signed-off-by: Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com> --- docs/about/deprecated.rst | 9 +++++++++ 1 file changed, 9 insertions(+)
diff --git a/docs/about/deprecated.rst b/docs/about/deprecated.rst index 2e15040246..7fdd2239b4 100644 --- a/docs/about/deprecated.rst +++ b/docs/about/deprecated.rst @@ -245,6 +245,15 @@ Nios II CPU (since 8.2) The Nios II architecture is orphan. The ``nios2`` guest CPU support is deprecated and will be removed in a future version of QEMU.
+``power5+`` and ``power7+`` CPU names (since 9.0) +''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''' + +The character "+" in device (and thus also CPU) names is not allowed +in the QEMU object model anymore. ``power5+``, ``power5+_v2.1``, +``power7+`` and ``power7+_v2.1`` are currently still supported via +an alias, but for consistency these will get removed in a future +release, too. Use ``power5plus_v2.1`` and ``power7plus_v2.1`` instead. +
System emulator machines ------------------------
Reviewed-by: Cédric Le Goater <clg@redhat.com> Thanks, C.
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 17:46:50 +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
We can get rid of the "power5+" / "power7+" hack in qom/object.c by using CPU aliases for those names instead (first patch).
I think in the long run, we should get rid of the names with a "+" in it completely, so the second patch suggests to deprecate those, but I'd also be fine if we keep the aliases around, so in that case please ignore the second patch.
Thomas Huth (2): target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming rules docs/about: Deprecate the old "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names
libvirt seems to be explicitly referencing power7+ in the code, so I guess we'll need code to translate the + versions to the spellt-out version to preserve compatibility.
On 12/01/2024 13.48, Peter Krempa wrote:
On Thu, Jan 11, 2024 at 17:46:50 +0100, Thomas Huth wrote:
We can get rid of the "power5+" / "power7+" hack in qom/object.c by using CPU aliases for those names instead (first patch).
I think in the long run, we should get rid of the names with a "+" in it completely, so the second patch suggests to deprecate those, but I'd also be fine if we keep the aliases around, so in that case please ignore the second patch.
Thomas Huth (2): target/ppc/cpu-models: Rename power5+ and power7+ for new QOM naming rules docs/about: Deprecate the old "power5+" and "power7+" CPU names
libvirt seems to be explicitly referencing power7+ in the code, so I guess we'll need code to translate the + versions to the spellt-out version to preserve compatibility.
If it's too cumbersome, we could also keep the alias enabled in QEMU, i.e. drop the second patch...? Thomas
participants (6)
-
Cédric Le Goater -
Cédric Le Goater -
Harsh Prateek Bora -
Peter Krempa -
Philippe Mathieu-Daudé -
Thomas Huth