On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 18:24:34 +0200 Claudio Fontana <cfont...@suse.de> wrote:
> On 4/19/21 6:20 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Mon, 19 Apr 2021 18:12:48 +0200 > > Claudio Fontana <cfont...@suse.de> wrote: > > > >> On 4/19/21 11:11 AM, Claudio Fontana wrote: > >>> Hi Cornelia, > >>> > >>> On 3/31/21 1:07 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2021 20:15:47 +0100 > >>>> Claudio Fontana <cfont...@suse.de> wrote: > > > >>>>> @@ -25,6 +24,10 @@ s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_KVM', if_true: files( > >>>>> 's390-stattrib-kvm.c', > >>>>> 'pv.c', > >>>>> )) > >>>>> +s390x_ss.add(when: 'CONFIG_TCG', if_true: files( > >>>>> + 'tod-qemu.c', > >>>> > >>>> Should we rename this to tod-tcg.c? > >>> > >>> I think so. > >> > >> Here we are a bit limited though by the fact that the object is currently > >> called: > >> > >> include/hw/s390x/tod.h:26:#define TYPE_QEMU_S390_TOD TYPE_S390_TOD "-qemu" > >> > >> So there might be a compatibility issue in trying to make this consistent, > >> which would mean to replace this with: > >> > >> #define TYPE_TCG_S390_TOD TYPE_S390_TOD "-tcg" > >> > >> What do you think? > > > > How visible is this? I don't think the TOD objects are instantiable by > > the user. > > > > I just remember we were very conservative with the object hierarchy on x86, > personally I am fine with the change. > I will add this change then, I'd ask for people with concerns about this to > speak up: > > (Paolo?) > > Ciao, > > CLaudio > It was more an argument against changing it, because most people won't see it anyway :)
