Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 5/6] s390x/cpu: Add error handling to cpu creation

[Matthew Rosato]

On 03/02/2016 02:59 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> Check for and propogate errors during s390 cpu creation.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Matthew Rosato <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c | 30 +++++++++++++++++++++
>>  hw/s390x/s390-virtio.c     |  2 +-
>>  hw/s390x/s390-virtio.h     |  1 +
>>  target-s390x/cpu-qom.h     |  3 +++
>>  target-s390x/cpu.c         | 65 
>> ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++--
>>  target-s390x/cpu.h         |  1 +
>>  target-s390x/helper.c      | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++--
>>  7 files changed, 128 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c b/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c
>> index 3090e76..4886dbf 100644
>> --- a/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c
>> +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c
>> @@ -112,6 +112,36 @@ void s390_memory_init(ram_addr_t mem_size)
>>      s390_skeys_init();
>>  }
>>
>> +S390CPU *s390_new_cpu(MachineState *machine, int64_t id, Error **errp)
> 
> Just a thought, if not passing machine but the model string, we could make
> 
> cpu_s390x_init() call s390_new_cpu().
> 
> But then s390_new_cpu() would have to be moved again. Not sure if this is
> really worth it.
> 

Additionally, next_cpu_id would have to be moved somewhere other than
the S390CPUClass, as we need that value for input to s390_new_cpu()
here, but won't have a cpu object to acquire it until after
s390_new_cpu() returns.

Going to leave cpu_s390x_init() calling cpu_s390x_create() unless
someone voices a strong opinion.

Matt