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

[Alexey Kardashevskiy]

On 06/23/2014 11:32 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote:
> 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!


Paolo promised to ack (in irc) and obviously forgot :) Should I give up and
stop bothering noble people? :)



-- 
Alexey