[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v2 0/5] QOM'ify Power Architecture CPU

From: Alexander Graf
Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v2 0/5] QOM'ify Power Architecture CPU
Date: Mon, 16 Apr 2012 19:51:18 +0200

On 10.04.2012, at 16:09, Andreas Färber wrote:

> Am 10.04.2012 08:41, schrieb David Gibson:
>> On Fri, Apr 06, 2012 at 06:17:07PM +0200, Andreas Färber wrote:
>>> Hello,
>>> This series follows up on my PowerPC QOM'ification patches from the
>>> qom-cpu-others.v1 RFC series and splits it into steps easier to review.
>>> The finalizer is actually filled with life now. Subclasses are postponed.
>>> David and Scott, please review and test.
>> Is there documentation about the object model somewhere?  I don't yet
>> know enough about it to easily review these.
> No conclusive one that I'm aware of... There's the feature description:
> http://wiki.qemu.org/Features/QOM
> You can look at your converted qdev devices and at previously committed
> CPU conversions as reference:
> target-sparc, first one using multiple type names:
> http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=ab7ab3d74c357e73a37b241fba27ea7f0595c085
> target-s390x:
> http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=29e4bcb26b80f975920508c83a9f24f29eb6bc1a
> http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=1ac1a7499bcb44174735780e0bd0421a1ac7a323
> http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=8f22e0df803697c11e8b10c90cc2e67df6e42884
> target-unicore32:
> http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=ae0f5e9ea80de923ae1c11289cf6ac468f657880
> target-arm:
> http://git.qemu.org/?p=qemu.git;a=commit;h=dec9c2d4306d7b4f8ffff482ac42dc468ed2a61d
> Basically if you verify that I'm not doing something terribly stupid
> like introducing NULL dereferences, removing valid parts of unrelated
> code, etc. and if you check that your KVM test cases don't assert/crash
> at startup, I'm confident we're fine in light of the "mass conversion".
> Maybe consider a Tested-by sufficient for this guest-invisible change?

Yeah, tested-by should be ok here. What's the status on this one?


reply via email to

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