On Fri, 14 Oct 2016 14:13:12 +0200 Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 14/10/2016 09:56, Greg Kurz wrote: > > On Thu, 13 Oct 2016 18:24:43 +0200 > > Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > >> Extract the realize part to cpu_exec_realize(), update all > >> calls to cpu_exec_init() to add cpu_exec_realize() to > >> have no functionnal change. > >> > >> Put in cpu_exec_init() what initializes the CPU, > >> in cpu_exec_realize() what adds it to the environment. > >> > >> Remove error parameter from cpu_exec_init() as it can't fail. > >> > >> Rename cpu_exec_exit() with cpu_exec_unrealize(): > >> cpu_exec_exit() is undoing what it has been done by cpu_exec_realize(), so > >> call it cpu_exec_unrealize(). > >> > >> CC: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Laurent Vivier <lviv...@redhat.com> > >> --- > > > > Just one question: is there a reason that prevents cpu_exec_unrealize() to > > be > > declared in include/exec/exec-all.h next to cpu_exec_realize() ? > > because qom/cpu.c doesn't include exec-all.h (and we can't as exec-all.h > is target specific and qom/cpu.c is common code). > That's a good reason indeed, even if cpu_exec_realize() and cpu_exec_unrealize() could theorically be compiled only twice: once for system, once for user. > Laurent Thanks ! -- Greg
