Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] v3: don't call reset functions on cpu initialization

[Glauber Costa]

On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 09:01:45PM +0200, Blue Swirl wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 8:43 PM, Laurent Desnogues
> <address@hidden> wrote:
> > On Fri, Nov 6, 2009 at 7:11 PM, Glauber Costa <address@hidden> wrote:
> >> On Fri, Nov 06, 2009 at 08:05:40PM +0200, Blue Swirl wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 5, 2009 at 6:05 PM, Glauber Costa <address@hidden> wrote:
> > [...]
> >>> > --- a/target-i386/helper.c
> >>> > +++ b/target-i386/helper.c
> >>> > @@ -1885,7 +1885,9 @@ CPUX86State *cpu_x86_init(const char *cpu_model)
> >>> >         return NULL;
> >>> >     }
> >>> >     mce_init(env);
> >>> > +#ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
> >>> >     cpu_reset(env);
> >>> > +#endif
> >>>
> >>> Please push the call to *-user/main.c, just after call to cpu_init().
> >> I'd prefer it that way too. But cpu_reset is also called in some other 
> >> places,
> >> and Laurent suggested me to to this way.
> >
> > Yes, you'd have to remove all calls to cpu_reset from all CPUs.
> > And also add a call to cpu_reset to cpu_copy.
> >
> >> I don't really know much about -user, so I'm fine with whatever you guys 
> >> agree on.
> >
> > I honestly don't care that much as long as all targets still work
> > in user mode :-)
> >
> > The aim was to make Glauber's patch less intrusive.
> 
> Given that only the new calls to cpu_reset are important and the
> removals are much less so (double reset shouldn't be a problem), the
> least intrusive version would be to just add the new calls and do the
> clean up later.
Which IMHO, pretty much means apply it this way, and then later on move
the reset functions elsewhere for -user, if one wants to.