[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v7 3/4] s390x: Migrate to new NMI interface

From: Alexey Kardashevskiy
Subject: Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v7 3/4] s390x: Migrate to new NMI interface
Date: Mon, 23 Jun 2014 23:32:58 +1000
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux i686 on x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.6.0

On 06/16/2014 06:37 PM, Alexander Graf wrote:
> On 16.06.14 10:33, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
>> On 06/16/2014 05:16 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:41:50 +1000
>>> Alexey Kardashevskiy <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>> On 06/13/2014 04:00 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:36:58 +1000
>>>>> Alexey Kardashevskiy <address@hidden> wrote:
>>>>>> This implements an NMI interface for s390 and s390-ccw machines.
>>>>>> This removes #ifdef s390 branch in qmp_inject_nmi so new s390's
>>>>>> nmi_monitor_handler() callback is going to be used for NMI.
>>>>>> Since nmi_monitor_handler()-calling code is platform independent,
>>>>>> CPUState::cpu_index is used instead of S390CPU::env.cpu_num.
>>>>>> There should not be any change in behaviour as both @cpu_index and
>>>>>> @cpu_num are global CPU numbers.
>>>>>> Also, s390_cpu_restart() takes care of preforming operations in
>>>>>> the specific CPU thread so no extra measure is required here either.
>>>>> I find this paragraph a bit confusing; I'd just remove it.
>>>> Besides bad english (please feel free to adjust it), what else is
>>>> confusing
>>>> here? I put it there because the spapr patch makes use of
>>>> async_run_on_cpu() and maintainers may ask why I do not do the same for
>>>> other platforms. This way I hoped I could reduce number of versions to
>>>> post :)
>>> What about
>>> "Note that s390_cpu_restart() already takes care of the specified cpu,
>>> so we don't need to schedule via async_run_on_cpu()."
>> I fail to see how exactly this is better or different but ok :)
>> Alex, should I repost it with Cornelia's suggestion? What should happen
>> next to this patchset? Who is supposed to pick it up? Thanks.
> Just post v8 of that single patch with the right message-id as reference. I
> can pick up the patches, but I'd like at least an ack from Paolo on the
> whole set.

Anybody, ping? Or we are waiting till x86 machines got QOM'ed and then I'll
repost it with x86 NMI handler? Thanks!


reply via email to

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