On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 04:47:34PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote: > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 02:44:04PM +1100, David Gibson wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:52:46AM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote: > > > Since commit 42ecaba ("target-i386: Call cpu_exec_init() on realize"), > > > , commit 6dd0f83 ("target-ppc: Move cpu_exec_init() call to realize > > > function"), > > > and commit c6644fc ("s390x/cpu: Get rid of side effects when creating a > > > vcpu"), > > > cpu_exec_init() has been moved to realize function for some architectures > > > to implement CPU htoplug. This allows any failures from cpu_exec_init() > > > to be > > > handled appropriately. > > > > > > This series tries to do the same work for all the other CPUs. > > > > > > But as the ARM Virtual Machine ("virt") needs the "memory" property of > > > the CPU > > > in the machine init function (the "memory" property is created in > > > cpu_exec_init() we want to move to the realize part), split > > > cpu_exec_init() in > > > two parts: a realize part (cpu_exec_realizefn(), adding the CPU in the > > > environment) and an init part (cpu_exec_initfn(), initializing the CPU, > > > like > > > adding the "memory" property). To mirror the realize part, add an > > > unrealize > > > part, and remove the cpu_exec_exit() call from the finalize part. > > > > > > This also allows to remove all the > > > "cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet" > > > properties from the CPU device class. > > > > This is looking good to me - the v3 re-org has made it quite a bit > > easier to follow. > > > > Whose tree should this go via? > > I can merge it through the machine tree, if others agree.
Fine my me, fwiw. -- David Gibson | I'll have my music baroque, and my code david AT gibson.dropbear.id.au | minimalist, thank you. NOT _the_ _other_ | _way_ _around_! http://www.ozlabs.org/~dgibson
Description: PGP signature