Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH RFC] PCMachineState: introduce acpi_build_enabled field

[Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 02:59:25PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 04:53:17PM +0000, Wei Liu wrote:
> > On Tue, Nov 01, 2016 at 02:48:27PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > [...]
> > > >  static void pc_machine_set_nvdimm(Object *obj, bool value, Error 
> > > > **errp)
> > > >  {
> > > >      PCMachineState *pcms = PC_MACHINE(obj);
> > > > @@ -2159,6 +2173,8 @@ static void pc_machine_initfn(Object *obj)
> > > >      pcms->vmport = ON_OFF_AUTO_AUTO;
> > > >      /* nvdimm is disabled on default. */
> > > >      pcms->acpi_nvdimm_state.is_enabled = false;
> > > > +    /* acpi build is enabled by default. */
> > > > +    pcms->acpi_build_enabled = true;
> > > 
> > > If you set:
> > >   pcms->acpi_build_enabled = PC_MACHINE_GET_CLASS(pcms)->has_acpi_build;
> > > the default value will be more consistent with the actual results
> > > (where pc-1.6 and older don't have ACPI build). Then you would
> > > probably be able to remove the pcmc->has_acpi_build check from
> > > acpi_setup() and only check pcms->acpi_build_enabled.
> > > 
> > 
> > Thank you for your good advice.
> > 
> > I take it that you're ok with the name of the field and the code in
> > general? If so I will drop RFC tag in my next submission.
> 
> The rest looks good to me, except that I don't see a reason to
> add a "acpi-build" property if it's not used for anything (all
> code is using the struct field directly).
> 

OK. I'm fine with deleting that. I was just following existing examples.

Wei.

> -- 
> Eduardo

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel