Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v6 2/4] target-s390x: Migrate to new NMI interface

[Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>]

On 06/12/2014 09:02 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 19:38:40 +1000
> Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
> 
>> On 06/12/2014 04:31 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 03:03:01 +1000
>>> Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This implements an NMI interface for s390 machine.
>>>>
>>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>> Since the only error s390_cpu_restart() can return is ENOSYS, convert
>>>> it to QERR_UNSUPPORTED.
>>>>
>>>> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <aik@ozlabs.ru>
>>>> ---
>>>> Changes:
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>> ---
>>>> Is there any good reason to have @cpu_num in addition to @cpu_index?
>>>> Just asking :)
>>>> ---
>>>>  cpus.c                 | 14 --------------
>>>>  hw/s390x/s390-virtio.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>  target-s390x/cpu.c     |  1 +
>>>>  3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>>
> 
>> I pushed some version to git@github.com:aik/qemu.git , branch nmi-v7
>> Please have a look and give it a go - I do not have s390 kernel/images
>> handy. Thanks!
> 
> Gave it a try with both of the machines: Triggering 'nmi' from the
> monitor still triggers the configured on_restart action, so this seems
> to work as well as before.
> 
>>
>> It does not look like we really need a new file for NMI now.
> 
> Yes, I think the v7 code looks fine.

Cool, thanks! I'll wait for a bit till everybody speaks and repost :-)



-- 
Alexey