[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/5] machine: introduce get_fw_dev_pa

From: Paolo Bonzini
Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/5] machine: introduce get_fw_dev_path() callback
Date: Tue, 03 Dec 2013 15:58:29 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:17.0) Gecko/20130923 Thunderbird/17.0.9

Il 03/12/2013 15:35, Andreas Färber ha scritto:
> Am 03.12.2013 15:00, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
>> Il 03/12/2013 14:44, Andreas Färber ha scritto:
>>>>> You can check "if (current_machine &&
>>>>> current_machine->get_fw_dev_path)", and move current_machine from vl.c
>>>>> to hw/qdev/core.c.
>>> Please don't encourage moving random stuff into "core" device code.
>>> If needed, we can easily add a machine.c, but that should remain
>>> softmmu-only.
>> Another solution would be to:
>> (1) add an interface which contains "get_fw_dev_path".  When
>> qdev_get_fw_dev_path is called, walk the QOM tree until an object that
>> implements the interface is found.  If none is found, call the bus
>> implementation as usual.
>> (2) in vl.c, add a way for current_machine to override the /machine
>> object.  A 100%-QOMified machine indeed could put a SOC-like Device there.
>> (3) for spapr, define the machine object to something that implements
>> said interface.
>> It seemed a bit complicated for this particular problem, but I cannot
>> say it's overengineered.
>> More aspects of the configuration could be moved to the new interface
>> over time, for example compat properties.
> I remember Hervé running into problems with interfaces and ppc -cpu ?
> (or -cpu host?), which does an object_class_foreach(), in the middle of
> which QOM interfaces tried registering new types, leading to a GLib
> assertion. Anthony never replied to that patch despite repeated pings,
> so the issue is likely still unresolved.
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/241072/ (proposed workaround)
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/241504/ (test case)
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/241073/ (actual interface attempt)

Well, let's fix it.  Thanks for the test case.

> They are also kind of odd wrt memory management since even when we
> object_initialize() previously allocated memory, interfaces of that type
> are not part of the object size and are still dynamically allocated
> IIRC. That may well be fixable of course by allocating space for
> interfaces after the instance_size and bumping its copy in
> TypeImpl::instance_size accordingly or calculate it in my proposed
> type_get_instance_size().
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/269591/
> http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/269595/

No, that has changed since commit 33e95c6 (qom: Reimplement Interfaces,


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]