Re: [PATCH v11 11/14] machine: Make smp_parse generic enough for all arches

[wangyanan (Y)]

On 2021/9/28 20:25, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <philmd@redhat.com> writes:
>
> > On 9/28/21 05:57, Yanan Wang wrote:
> > > Currently the only difference between smp_parse and pc_smp_parse
> > > is the support of dies parameter and the related error reporting.
> > > With some arch compat variables like "bool dies_supported", we can
> > > make smp_parse generic enough for all arches and the PC specific
> > > one can be removed.
> > >
> > > Making smp_parse() generic enough can reduce code duplication and
> > > ease the code maintenance, and also allows extending the topology
> > > with more arch specific members (e.g., clusters) in the future.
> > >
> > > Suggested-by: Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>
> > > Suggested-by: Daniel P. Berrange <berrange@redhat.com>
> > > Signed-off-by: Yanan Wang <wangyanan55@huawei.com>
> > > ---
> > >   hw/core/machine.c   | 91 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------
> > >   hw/i386/pc.c        | 84 +----------------------------------------
> > >   include/hw/boards.h |  9 +++++
> > >   3 files changed, 81 insertions(+), 103 deletions(-)
> > > +/*
> > > + * smp_parse - Generic function used to parse the given SMP configuration
> > > + *
> > > + * Any missing parameter in "cpus/maxcpus/sockets/cores/threads" will be
> > > + * automatically computed based on the provided ones.
> > > + *
> > > + * In the calculation of omitted sockets/cores/threads: we prefer sockets
> > > + * over cores over threads before 6.2, while preferring cores over sockets
> > > + * over threads since 6.2.
> > > + *
> > > + * In the calculation of cpus/maxcpus: When both maxcpus and cpus are omitted,
> > > + * maxcpus will be computed from the given parameters and cpus will be set
> > > + * equal to maxcpus. When only one of maxcpus and cpus is given then the
> > > + * omitted one will be set to its given counterpart's value. Both maxcpus and
> > > + * cpus may be specified, but maxcpus must be equal to or greater than cpus.
> > > + *
> > > + * For compatibility, apart from the parameters that will be computed, newly
> > > + * introduced topology members which are likely to be target specific should
> > > + * be directly set as 1 if they are omitted (e.g. dies for PC since 4.1).
> > > + */
> > >   static void smp_parse(MachineState *ms, SMPConfiguration *config, Error 
> > > **errp)
> > Can we have it return a boolean instead?
> Yes, please.  From error.h's big comment:
>
>   * = Rules =
> [...]
>   * - Whenever practical, also return a value that indicates success /
>   *   failure.  This can make the error checking more concise, and can
>   *   avoid useless error object creation and destruction.  Note that
>   *   we still have many functions returning void.  We recommend
>   *   • bool-valued functions return true on success / false on failure,
>   *   • pointer-valued functions return non-null / null pointer, and
>   *   • integer-valued functions return non-negative / negative.
Ok. I will add an extra patch to this series to do the change and respin.
In practice the boolean return value will also make a smp parsing unit
test more concise. (I'm planning to introduce one test).

Thanks,
Yanan