Re: [qemu-s390x] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 43/49] qapi: make s390 commands depend on TARGET_S390X

[Thomas Huth]

On 22.03.2018 10:41, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
> Hi
> 
> On Thu, Mar 22, 2018 at 6:42 AM, Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:
>> On 21.03.2018 12:52, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
[...]
>>> diff --git a/qmp.c b/qmp.c
>>> index d8f80cb04e..14972b78df 100644
>>> --- a/qmp.c
>>> +++ b/qmp.c
>>> @@ -601,20 +601,6 @@ CpuModelExpansionInfo 
>>> *qmp_query_cpu_model_expansion(CpuModelExpansionType type,
>>>      return arch_query_cpu_model_expansion(type, model, errp);
>>>  }
>>>
>>> -CpuModelCompareInfo *qmp_query_cpu_model_comparison(CpuModelInfo *modela,
>>> -                                                    CpuModelInfo *modelb,
>>> -                                                    Error **errp)
>>> -{
>>> -    return arch_query_cpu_model_comparison(modela, modelb, errp);
>>> -}
>>> -
>>> -CpuModelBaselineInfo *qmp_query_cpu_model_baseline(CpuModelInfo *modela,
>>> -                                                   CpuModelInfo *modelb,
>>> -                                                   Error **errp)
>>> -{
>>> -    return arch_query_cpu_model_baseline(modela, modelb, errp);
>>> -}
>>
>> Not sure, but couldn't these two commands be implemented on other
>> architectures in the long run, too? So removing them now here seems
>> somewhat counterproductive?
> 
> They would have modify the qapi ifdef and implement the qmp handler in
> their target, similar to what would be done by implementing arch_query
> handlers. How counterproductive is that? The benefit is that we don't
> have to have stubs and "de-register" the commands.

Yes, thinking about that again, I guess you're right, this should be
fine. I first thought that there would likely be some common code
between the targets finally, but it's more likely that this CPU stuff is
completely different everywhere. So never mind!

 Thomas