|
From: | Greg Bellows |
Subject: | Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/5] target-arm: Add ARM CPU feature parsing |
Date: | Tue, 20 Jan 2015 08:49:09 -0600 |
Aren't we leaking here? strtok returns the next token (or NULL) so don't
Greg Bellows <address@hidden> writes:
> Adds a CPU feature parsing function and assigns to the CPU class. The only
> feature added was "-aarch64" which disabled the AArch64 execution state on a
> 64-bit ARM CPU.
>
> Also adds stripping of features from CPU model string in acquiring the ARM CPU
> by name.
>
> Signed-off-by: Greg Bellows <address@hidden>
> ---
> target-arm/cpu.c | 45 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
> 1 file changed, 44 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/target-arm/cpu.c b/target-arm/cpu.c
> index 285947f..f327dd7 100644
> --- a/target-arm/cpu.c
> +++ b/target-arm/cpu.c
> @@ -514,13 +514,17 @@ static ObjectClass *arm_cpu_class_by_name(const char *cpu_model)
> {
> ObjectClass *oc;
> char *typename;
> + char *cpuname;
>
> if (!cpu_model) {
> return NULL;
> }
>
> - typename = g_strdup_printf("%s-" TYPE_ARM_CPU, cpu_model);
> + cpuname = g_strdup(cpu_model);
> + cpuname = strtok(cpuname, ",");
> + typename = g_strdup_printf("%s-" TYPE_ARM_CPU, cpuname);
> oc = object_class_by_name(typename);
> + g_free(cpuname);
> g_free(typename);
we loose the original ptr?
Also while using glib you might want to consider using glib's own
tokenising functions (e.g. g_strsplit). This has the advantage of having
helper functions like g_strfreev() which can clean-up everything in one go.
I only point to this for reference to a "gliby" approach to the parsing,
> if (!oc || !object_class_dynamic_cast(oc, TYPE_ARM_CPU) ||
> object_class_is_abstract(oc)) {
> @@ -1163,6 +1167,44 @@ static Property arm_cpu_properties[] = {
> DEFINE_PROP_END_OF_LIST()
> };
>
> +static void arm_cpu_parse_features(CPUState *cs, char *features,
> + Error **errp)
> +{
> + ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(cs);
> + char *featurestr;
> +
> + featurestr = features ? strtok(features, ",") : NULL;
> + while (featurestr) {
> + if (featurestr[0] == '-') {
> + if (!strcmp(featurestr+1, "aarch64")) {
> + /* If AArch64 is disabled then we need to unset the feature */
> + unset_feature(&cpu->env, ARM_FEATURE_AARCH64);
> + } else {
> + /* Everyting else is unsupported */
> + error_setg(errp, "unsupported CPU property '%s'",
> + &featurestr[1]);
> + return;
> + }
> + } else if (featurestr[0] == '+') {
> + /* No '+' properties supported yet */
> + error_setg(errp, "unsupported CPU property '%s'",
> + &featurestr[1]);
> + return;
> + } else if (g_strstr_len(featurestr, -1, "=")) {
> + /* No '=' properties supported yet */
> + char *prop = strtok(featurestr, "=");
> + error_setg(errp, "unsupported CPU property '%s'", prop);
> + return;
> + } else {
> + /* Everything else is a bad format */
> + error_setg(errp, "CPU property string '%s' not in format "
> + "(+feature|-feature|feature=xyz)", featurestr);
> + return;
> + }
> + featurestr = strtok(NULL, ",");
> + }
> +}
relative beauty being in the eye of the beholder ;-)
https://github.com/stsquad/qemu/commit/86bc88f661141b93cbe5b107c4d5b4322b563241#diff-286aa0f2c1f0d862c4197781280a92efR116
It does make me think boilerplate but I wonder if this is a generic
enough problem to be solved more generally in QEMU?
Alex Bennée
> +
> static void arm_cpu_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
> {
> ARMCPUClass *acc = ARM_CPU_CLASS(oc);
> @@ -1183,6 +1225,7 @@ static void arm_cpu_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
> cc->set_pc = arm_cpu_set_pc;
> cc->gdb_read_register = arm_cpu_gdb_read_register;
> cc->gdb_write_register = arm_cpu_gdb_write_register;
> + cc->parse_features = arm_cpu_parse_features;
> #ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
> cc->handle_mmu_fault = arm_cpu_handle_mmu_fault;
> #else
--
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |