[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.3] powerpc: fix -machine usb=no for newwor
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.3] powerpc: fix -machine usb=no for newworld and pseries machines
Tue, 24 Mar 2015 00:00:18 +0200
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.5.0
On 03/23/2015 10:11 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 23/03/2015 19:21, Alexander Graf wrote:
On 03/23/2015 07:20 PM, Marcel Apfelbaum wrote:
On 03/23/2015 07:05 PM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Capture the explicit setting of "usb=no" into a separate bool, and
use it to skip the update of machine->usb in the board init function.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <address@hidden>
hw/core/machine.c | 1 +
hw/ppc/mac_newworld.c | 2 +-
hw/ppc/spapr.c | 2 +-
include/hw/boards.h | 1 +
4 files changed, 4 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/core/machine.c b/hw/core/machine.c
index cb1185a..25c45e6 100644
@@ -223,6 +223,7 @@ static void machine_set_usb(Object *obj, bool
value, Error **errp)
MachineState *ms = MACHINE(obj);
ms->usb = value;
+ ms->usb_disabled = !value;
Maybe is too late now, but I really not like this pollution of
with 'usb_disabled'. (Imagine we have this kind of fields for lots of
objects and lots
of corner cases...)
I know it comes to solve a bug, but we talked about it in another mail
this change in semantics was approved.
Let me explain *why* I don't like it.
1. We add an "usb_disabled" field to a base class (actually object)
of all the machines and the only place it is interesting is
for 2 machines on ppc.
So we do for kernel_irqchip_requested/allowed. Both approaches could be
replaced by a tri-state on/off/auto.
Personally I prefer this one, but out of the scope of this patch.
2. Even for these 2 machines, the scenario of defaults=on and usb=off
is not practical.
Why? For example you could add a virtio-input device instead of a USB
keyboard and mouse.
You got me there :)
From what I understood for those boards there is no need for this
combination but I don't know them enough (OK.. at all).
I'm personally fine either way, but I assumed that Paolo had a good
reason for writing the patch?
One good reason is that no matter how you look at it, it's at least
surprising and at worst a bug that "-machine usb=no" includes a default
The second good reason is that it's a guest ABI change for the versioned
pSeries machines, and as such it breaks migration.
Always migration wins.
Bottom line, of course I don't have anything against fixing this bug,
my problem was only with the way we add those fields (usb_disabled), maybe a
QOM property (and variable behind it) is a solution, but not for now of course.
I also didn't like the required/allowed fields and I added them anyway...