From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36131) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yug9o-0001lI-VF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2015 07:58:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yug9k-00049L-Up for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2015 07:58:00 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42652) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Yug9k-00049H-Nw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 19 May 2015 07:57:56 -0400 Received: from int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx11.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.24]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id t4JBvtH9026385 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=FAIL) for ; Tue, 19 May 2015 07:57:55 -0400 Message-ID: <555B2540.60403@redhat.com> Date: Tue, 19 May 2015 13:57:52 +0200 From: Laszlo Ersek MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1432036024-29399-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1432036024-29399-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: wake up processors that receive an SMI List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 05/19/15 13:47, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > An SMI should definitely wake up a processor in halted state! > This lets OVMF boot with SMM on multiprocessor systems, although > it halts very soon after that with a "CpuIndex != BspIndex" > assertion failure. > > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini > --- > target-i386/cpu.c | 1 + > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+) > > diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.c b/target-i386/cpu.c > index 7b6f9e4..4c4496b 100644 > --- a/target-i386/cpu.c > +++ b/target-i386/cpu.c > @@ -2982,6 +2982,7 @@ static bool x86_cpu_has_work(CPUState *cs) > return ((cs->interrupt_request & CPU_INTERRUPT_HARD) && > (env->eflags & IF_MASK)) || > (cs->interrupt_request & (CPU_INTERRUPT_NMI | > + CPU_INTERRUPT_SMI | > CPU_INTERRUPT_INIT | > CPU_INTERRUPT_SIPI | > CPU_INTERRUPT_MCE)); > Great, that's something I should look into then. I'll apply this and then see what's up with the assertion failure. Thanks! Laszlo