Re: [PATCH 0/2] hw/acpi: bump MADT to revision 5

["Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>]

On Thu, Mar 30, 2023 at 01:06:36PM +0530, Ani Sinha wrote:
> 
> 
> On Wed, 29 Mar 2023, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Mar 29, 2023 at 08:14:37AM -0500, Eric DeVolder wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > On 3/29/23 00:19, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
> > > > Hmm I don't think we can reasonably make such a change for 8.0.
> > > > Seems too risky.
> > > > Also, I feel we want to have an internal (with "x-" prefix") flag to
> > > > revert to old behaviour, in case of breakage on some guests.  and maybe
> > > > we want to keep old revision for old machine types.
> > > Ok, what option name, for keeping old behavior, would you like?
> >
> > Don't much care. x-madt-rev?
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Tue, Mar 28, 2023 at 11:59:24AM -0400, Eric DeVolder wrote:
> > > > > The following Linux kernel change broke CPU hotplug for MADT revision
> > > > > less than 5.
> > > > >
> > > > >   commit e2869bd7af60 ("x86/acpi/boot: Do not register processors that cannot be onlined for x2APIC")
> > > >
> > > > Presumably it's being fixed? Link to discussion? Patch fixing that in
> > > > Linux?
> > >
> > > https://lore.kernel.org/linux-acpi/20230327191026.3454-1-eric.devolder@oracle.com/T/#t
> >
> > Great! Maybe stick a Link: tag in the commit log.
> 
> If the original bug is in the kernel and kernel upstream has accepted both
> your fix and Mario's patch on the acpi revision mess, I see no urgency to
> fix this in QEMU.
> 
> Maybe we can address this in the 8.1 development window.

Why "maybe"? Eric is working on a patch I don't see why we won't
address it.

-- 
MST