qemu-arm
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

[Qemu-arm] [PATCH] target-i386: Remove xlevel & hv-spinlocks option fixu


From: Eduardo Habkost
Subject: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH] target-i386: Remove xlevel & hv-spinlocks option fixups
Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2016 13:55:20 -0300
User-agent: Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27)

The "fixup will be removed in future versions" warnings are
present since QEMU 1.7.0, at least, so users should have fixed
their scripts and configurations, already.

In the case of libvirt users, libvirt doesn't use the "xlevel"
option, and already rejects HyperV spinlock retry count < 0xFFF.

Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden>
---
Igor, feel free to include this in the beginning of your series.
I believe it will help making the patches simpler.
---
 target-i386/cpu.c | 35 +----------------------------------
 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 34 deletions(-)

diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.c b/target-i386/cpu.c
index f3f95cd..940aa22 100644
--- a/target-i386/cpu.c
+++ b/target-i386/cpu.c
@@ -1967,23 +1967,7 @@ static void x86_cpu_parse_featurestr(CPUState *cs, char 
*features,
         } else if ((val = strchr(featurestr, '='))) {
             *val = 0; val++;
             feat2prop(featurestr);
-            if (!strcmp(featurestr, "xlevel")) {
-                char *err;
-                char num[32];
-
-                numvalue = strtoul(val, &err, 0);
-                if (!*val || *err) {
-                    error_setg(errp, "bad numerical value %s", val);
-                    return;
-                }
-                if (numvalue < 0x80000000) {
-                    error_report("xlevel value shall always be >= 0x80000000"
-                                 ", fixup will be removed in future versions");
-                    numvalue += 0x80000000;
-                }
-                snprintf(num, sizeof(num), "%" PRIu32, numvalue);
-                object_property_parse(OBJECT(cpu), num, featurestr, 
&local_err);
-            } else if (!strcmp(featurestr, "tsc-freq")) {
+            if (!strcmp(featurestr, "tsc-freq")) {
                 int64_t tsc_freq;
                 char *err;
                 char num[32];
@@ -1997,23 +1981,6 @@ static void x86_cpu_parse_featurestr(CPUState *cs, char 
*features,
                 snprintf(num, sizeof(num), "%" PRId64, tsc_freq);
                 object_property_parse(OBJECT(cpu), num, "tsc-frequency",
                                       &local_err);
-            } else if (!strcmp(featurestr, "hv-spinlocks")) {
-                char *err;
-                const int min = 0xFFF;
-                char num[32];
-                numvalue = strtoul(val, &err, 0);
-                if (!*val || *err) {
-                    error_setg(errp, "bad numerical value %s", val);
-                    return;
-                }
-                if (numvalue < min) {
-                    error_report("hv-spinlocks value shall always be >= 0x%x"
-                                 ", fixup will be removed in future versions",
-                                 min);
-                    numvalue = min;
-                }
-                snprintf(num, sizeof(num), "%" PRId32, numvalue);
-                object_property_parse(OBJECT(cpu), num, featurestr, 
&local_err);
             } else {
                 object_property_parse(OBJECT(cpu), val, featurestr, 
&local_err);
             }
-- 
2.5.5



reply via email to

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