[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 4/8] target-i386: cpu: consolidate calls of ob
From: |
Eduardo Habkost |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 4/8] target-i386: cpu: consolidate calls of object_property_parse() in x86_cpu_parse_featurestr |
Date: |
Wed, 1 Jun 2016 15:46:20 -0300 |
User-agent: |
Mutt/1.6.1 (2016-04-27) |
On Wed, Jun 01, 2016 at 06:37:26PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <address@hidden>
> ---
> target-i386/cpu.c | 32 +++++++++++++++++---------------
> 1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 15 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.c b/target-i386/cpu.c
> index 238f69d..618aef9 100644
> --- a/target-i386/cpu.c
> +++ b/target-i386/cpu.c
> @@ -1945,12 +1945,15 @@ static void x86_cpu_parse_featurestr(CPUState *cs,
> char *features,
> X86CPU *cpu = X86_CPU(cs);
> char *featurestr; /* Single 'key=value" string being parsed */
> uint32_t numvalue;
> + char num[32];
> + const char *name;
> + char *err;
> Error *local_err = NULL;
>
> featurestr = features ? strtok(features, ",") : NULL;
>
> while (featurestr) {
> - char *val;
> + char *val = NULL;
> if (featurestr[0] == '+') {
> add_flagname_to_bitmaps(featurestr + 1, plus_features,
> &local_err);
> } else if (featurestr[0] == '-') {
> @@ -1958,10 +1961,8 @@ static void x86_cpu_parse_featurestr(CPUState *cs,
> char *features,
> } else if ((val = strchr(featurestr, '='))) {
> *val = 0; val++;
> feat2prop(featurestr);
> + name = 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);
> @@ -1973,11 +1974,9 @@ static void x86_cpu_parse_featurestr(CPUState *cs,
> char *features,
> numvalue += 0x80000000;
> }
> snprintf(num, sizeof(num), "%" PRIu32, numvalue);
> - object_property_parse(OBJECT(cpu), num, featurestr,
> &local_err);
> + val = num;
> } else if (!strcmp(featurestr, "tsc-freq")) {
> int64_t tsc_freq;
> - char *err;
> - char num[32];
>
> tsc_freq = qemu_strtosz_suffix_unit(val, &err,
> QEMU_STRTOSZ_DEFSUFFIX_B,
> 1000);
> @@ -1986,12 +1985,11 @@ static void x86_cpu_parse_featurestr(CPUState *cs,
> char *features,
> return;
> }
> snprintf(num, sizeof(num), "%" PRId64, tsc_freq);
> - object_property_parse(OBJECT(cpu), num, "tsc-frequency",
> - &local_err);
> + val = num;
> + name = "tsc-frequency";
> } 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);
> @@ -2004,14 +2002,18 @@ static void x86_cpu_parse_featurestr(CPUState *cs,
> char *features,
> 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);
> + val = num;
> }
> } else {
> feat2prop(featurestr);
> - object_property_parse(OBJECT(cpu), "on", featurestr, &local_err);
> + name = featurestr;
> + val = (char *)"on";
You don't need this hack if you do something like this:
while (featurestr) {
- char *val = NULL;
+ const char *val = NULL;
+ char *eq = NULL;
if (featurestr[0] == '+') {
add_flagname_to_bitmaps(featurestr + 1, plus_features, &local_err);
} else if (featurestr[0] == '-') {
add_flagname_to_bitmaps(featurestr + 1, minus_features,
&local_err);
- } else if ((val = strchr(featurestr, '='))) {
- *val = 0; val++;
+ } else if ((eq = strchr(featurestr, '='))) {
+ *eq++ = 0;
+ val = eq;
feat2prop(featurestr);
name = featurestr;
if (!strcmp(featurestr, "xlevel")) {
> }
> +
> + if (val) {
> + object_property_parse(OBJECT(cpu), val, name, &local_err);
> + }
I would find it easier to read if this part was inside the same
block as the code that sets name/val.
I would find it even better if object_property_parse() was in the
main loop body, and the +feature/-feature code placed inside an
if/continue branch (to make it clear that it is an exception, not
the rule). Like this:
/* untested */
static void x86_cpu_parse_featurestr(CPUState *cs, char *features,
Error **errp)
{
X86CPU *cpu = X86_CPU(cs);
char *featurestr; /* Single 'key=value" string being parsed */
char *err;
Error *local_err = NULL;
if (!features) {
return;
}
for (featurestr = strtok(features, ",");
featurestr;
featurestr = strtok(NULL, ",")) {
const char *name;
const char *val = NULL;
char *eq = NULL;
uint32_t numvalue;
char num[32];
/* Compatibility syntax: */
if (featurestr[0] == '+') {
add_flagname_to_bitmaps(featurestr + 1, plus_features, &local_err);
continue;
} else if (featurestr[0] == '-') {
add_flagname_to_bitmaps(featurestr + 1, minus_features, &local_err);
continue;
}
eq = strchr(featurestr, '=');
if (eq) {
*eq++ = 0;
val = eq;
} else {
val = "on";
}
feat2prop(featurestr);
name = featurestr;
/* Special cases: */
if (!strcmp(name, "xlevel")) {
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);
val = num;
} else if (!strcmp(name, "tsc-freq")) {
int64_t tsc_freq;
tsc_freq = qemu_strtosz_suffix_unit(val, &err,
QEMU_STRTOSZ_DEFSUFFIX_B, 1000);
if (tsc_freq < 0 || *err) {
error_setg(errp, "bad numerical value %s", val);
return;
}
snprintf(num, sizeof(num), "%" PRId64, tsc_freq);
val = num;
name = "tsc-frequency";
} else if (!strcmp(name, "hv-spinlocks")) {
const int min = 0xFFF;
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);
val = num;
}
object_property_parse(OBJECT(cpu), val, name, &local_err);
if (local_err) {
error_propagate(errp, local_err);
return;
}
}
}
> +
> if (local_err) {
> error_propagate(errp, local_err);
> return;
> --
> 1.8.3.1
>
--
Eduardo
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 1/8] target-i386: cpu: move features logic that requires CPUState to realize time, (continued)
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 1/8] target-i386: cpu: move features logic that requires CPUState to realize time, Igor Mammedov, 2016/06/02
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 1/8] target-i386: cpu: move features logic that requires CPUState to realize time, Eduardo Habkost, 2016/06/02
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 1/8] target-i386: cpu: move features logic that requires CPUState to realize time, Igor Mammedov, 2016/06/02
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 1/8] target-i386: cpu: move features logic that requires CPUState to realize time, Eduardo Habkost, 2016/06/02
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 1/8] target-i386: cpu: move features logic that requires CPUState to realize time, Igor Mammedov, 2016/06/02
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 1/8] target-i386: cpu: move features logic that requires CPUState to realize time, Eduardo Habkost, 2016/06/02
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/8] target-i386: cpu: move features logic that requires CPUState to realize time, Igor Mammedov, 2016/06/03
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/8] target-i386: cpu: move features logic that requires CPUState to realize time, Eduardo Habkost, 2016/06/03
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 1/8] target-i386: cpu: move features logic that requires CPUState to realize time, Igor Mammedov, 2016/06/04
[Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 4/8] target-i386: cpu: consolidate calls of object_property_parse() in x86_cpu_parse_featurestr, Igor Mammedov, 2016/06/01
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 4/8] target-i386: cpu: consolidate calls of object_property_parse() in x86_cpu_parse_featurestr,
Eduardo Habkost <=
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 4/8] target-i386: cpu: consolidate calls of object_property_parse() in x86_cpu_parse_featurestr, Igor Mammedov, 2016/06/02
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 4/8] target-i386: cpu: consolidate calls of object_property_parse() in x86_cpu_parse_featurestr, Eduardo Habkost, 2016/06/02
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 4/8] target-i386: cpu: consolidate calls of object_property_parse() in x86_cpu_parse_featurestr, Eduardo Habkost, 2016/06/02
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 4/8] target-i386: cpu: consolidate calls of object_property_parse() in x86_cpu_parse_featurestr, Peter Krempa, 2016/06/02
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 4/8] target-i386: cpu: consolidate calls of object_property_parse() in x86_cpu_parse_featurestr, Igor Mammedov, 2016/06/02
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH RFC 4/8] target-i386: cpu: consolidate calls of object_property_parse() in x86_cpu_parse_featurestr, Peter Krempa, 2016/06/03
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 4/8] target-i386: cpu: consolidate calls of object_property_parse() in x86_cpu_parse_featurestr, Igor Mammedov, 2016/06/03
- Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 4/8] target-i386: cpu: consolidate calls of object_property_parse() in x86_cpu_parse_featurestr, Eduardo Habkost, 2016/06/03
Re: [Qemu-arm] [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC 4/8] target-i386: cpu: consolidate calls of object_property_parse() in x86_cpu_parse_featurestr, Igor Mammedov, 2016/06/02
[Qemu-arm] [PATCH] target-i386: Remove xlevel & hv-spinlocks option fixups, Eduardo Habkost, 2016/06/02