[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, 16 Jun 2014 18:33:06 +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 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.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Since the only error s390_cpu_restart() can return is ENOSYS, convert
>>>> it to QERR_UNSUPPORTED.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <address@hidden>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes:
>>>> v7:
>>>> * since now s390' are QOM'ed, add interface to them and do not create
>>>> new object
>>>>
>>>> v6:
>>>> * supported NMI interface
>>>>
>>>> v5:
>>>> * added ENOSYS -> QERR_UNSUPPORTED, qapi/qmp/qerror.h was added for this
>>>>
>>>> v4:
>>>> * s/\<nmi\>/nmi_monitor_handler/
>>>>
>>>> v3:
>>>> * now contains both old code removal and new code insertion, easier to
>>>> track changes
>>>>
>>>> Conflicts:
>>>> hw/s390x/s390-virtio.c
>>>> ---
>>>> cpus.c | 14 --------------
>>>> hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c | 6 ++++++
>>>> hw/s390x/s390-virtio.c | 15 +++++++++++++++
>>>> hw/s390x/s390-virtio.h | 3 +++
>>>> 4 files changed, 24 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>>
>>> Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <address@hidden>
>>>
>>
>>
>
--
Alexey
- [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v7 1/4] cpus: Define callback for QEMU "nmi" command, (continued)
Re: [Qemu-ppc] [PATCH v7 0/4] cpus: Add generic "nmi" monitor command support, Alexander Graf, 2014/06/13