On 01/05/2015 13:59, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
I have a patch to add . and .. properties. You can use them to add
an alias to an object.
What's the difference between a link and an alias to an object?
A (read-only) link adds a reference to the target, an alias doesn't.
Paolo
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:19:07 -0300
Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
This will provide a predictable path for the CPU objects, and a more
powerful alternative for the query-cpus QMP command, as now every QOM
property on CPU objects can be easily queried.
provided the way cpu_index is
On 04/05/2015 11:47, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:19:07 -0300
Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
This will provide a predictable path for the CPU objects, and a more
powerful alternative for the query-cpus QMP command, as now every QOM
property on CPU objects can
On Mon, 04 May 2015 11:59:52 +0200
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/05/2015 11:47, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:19:07 -0300
Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
This will provide a predictable path for the CPU objects, and a
more powerful
On 04/05/2015 15:16, Igor Mammedov wrote:
Can we use the APIC id then? Perhaps wrapped with a CPUState-level
method get_stable_processor_id()?
We have CPUClass-get_arch_id() which results in APIC id for
target-i386.
But I'd rather see an arbitrary DEVICE-id as index/name, that way
when
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 03:16:16PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Mon, 04 May 2015 11:59:52 +0200
Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
On 04/05/2015 11:47, Igor Mammedov wrote:
On Thu, 30 Apr 2015 16:19:07 -0300
Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
This will
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 03:19:32PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 04/05/2015 15:16, Igor Mammedov wrote:
Can we use the APIC id then? Perhaps wrapped with a CPUState-level
method get_stable_processor_id()?
We have CPUClass-get_arch_id() which results in APIC id for
target-i386.
On 04/05/2015 16:05, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 03:19:32PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 04/05/2015 15:16, Igor Mammedov wrote:
Can we use the APIC id then? Perhaps wrapped with a CPUState-level
method get_stable_processor_id()?
We have CPUClass-get_arch_id() which
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 05:53:59PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 04/05/2015 16:05, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
On Mon, May 04, 2015 at 03:19:32PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 04/05/2015 15:16, Igor Mammedov wrote:
Can we use the APIC id then? Perhaps wrapped with a CPUState-level
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 11:47:09PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 30/04/2015 22:21, Andreas Färber wrote:
+cpu-self = cobj;
+object_property_add_link(cpu_container, path, TYPE_CPU, cpu-self,
NULL,
+ OBJ_PROP_LINK_UNREF_ON_RELEASE, error_abort);
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 10:21:55PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
First I did not participate in that discussion, second nack to that
self pointer. Please hold off on this until I'm back. Andreas
I suggested it 3 times before. The message mentioned in the patch has
pointers to the other 2
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 06:51:43PM -0700, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
This will provide a predictable path for the CPU objects, and a more
powerful alternative for the query-cpus QMP command, as now every QOM
property
This will provide a predictable path for the CPU objects, and a more
powerful alternative for the query-cpus QMP command, as now every QOM
property on CPU objects can be easily queried.
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com
---
Note that this doesn't replace any future topology
First I did not participate in that discussion, second nack to that self
pointer. Please hold off on this until I'm back. Andreas
Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com schrieb:
This will provide a predictable path for the CPU objects, and a more
powerful alternative for the query-cpus QMP
On 30/04/2015 22:21, Andreas Färber wrote:
+cpu-self = cobj;
+object_property_add_link(cpu_container, path, TYPE_CPU, cpu-self, NULL,
+ OBJ_PROP_LINK_UNREF_ON_RELEASE, error_abort);
Doesn't this leak the CPU object?
I have a patch to add . and .. properties.
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 2:47 PM, Paolo Bonzini pbonz...@redhat.com wrote:
On 30/04/2015 22:21, Andreas Färber wrote:
+cpu-self = cobj;
+object_property_add_link(cpu_container, path, TYPE_CPU, cpu-self,
NULL,
+ OBJ_PROP_LINK_UNREF_ON_RELEASE, error_abort);
On Thu, Apr 30, 2015 at 12:19 PM, Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
This will provide a predictable path for the CPU objects, and a more
powerful alternative for the query-cpus QMP command, as now every QOM
property on CPU objects can be easily queried.
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost
17 matches
Mail list logo
