[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v2.1 00/12] Core based CPU hotplug for Power

From: Bharata B Rao
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v2.1 00/12] Core based CPU hotplug for PowerPC sPAPR
Date: Tue, 5 Apr 2016 20:25:57 +0530
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)

On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 04:44:27PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Mar 2016 14:09:09 +0530
> Bharata B Rao <address@hidden> wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > This is v2.1 of "Core based CPU hotplug for PowerPC sPAPR". v2 was
> > posted here:
> > https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-ppc/2016-03/msg00201.html
> > 
> > I am making this v2.1 instead of v3 as this introduces a change in
> > device_add semantics and if we don't want to continue this, I will go
> > back to the previous v2 semantics from v3 onwards. v2 had
> > spapr-cpu-core device that served as CPU core device for all types of
> > PowerPCCPU threads. In this version however, spapr-cpu-core becomes
> > an abstract device and we will have different core devices for each
> > of the PowerPCCPU type. So in this version, the hotplug semantics
> > looks like this:
> > 
> > (qemu) device_add POWER8-spapr-cpu-core,id=core2,core=16[,threads=4]
> > 
> > cpu_model specification is gone as it becomes redundant with different
> > core types for each CPU type. CPU core types are defined only for
> > host, POWER7 and POWER8 models only (and not for their
> > variants/aliases) yet.
> > 
> > I have mostly taken care of all the review comments that I got for v2.
> Could you rebase on top of current master, pls?

Sure, I usually update, but missed it this time.

> and fix compile error:
> hw/cpu/core.c: In function ‘core_prop_set_core’:
> hw/cpu/core.c:31:9: error: implicit declaration of function ‘error_propagate’ 
> [-Werror=implicit-function-declaration]
>          error_propagate(errp, local_err);

I don't see this when compiling all the targets either on x86 or PPC systems.
May be this is seen with latest master, in any case will check this out
when spinning next version.

However do you have any specific comment to be addressed from this version
before I post the next one ?


reply via email to

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