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

[Alexander Graf]

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.


Alex