From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52837)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1ZIhcT-0001Ks-Mw
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:22:54 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1ZIhcQ-0004R6-Cq
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:22:53 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39682)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1ZIhcQ-0004R2-70
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 24 Jul 2015 14:22:50 -0400
References: <1437761762-19798-1-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com>
	<1437761762-19798-4-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com>
From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <55B28274.2030704@redhat.com>
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 2015 20:22:44 +0200
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1437761762-19798-4-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH for-2.4-rc3 3/3] target-i386: wake up
 processors that receive an SMI
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>, Andreas Faerber <afaerber@suse.de>, Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>

On 07/24/15 20:16, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
> From: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> 
> 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 <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> Cc: Andreas Faerber <afaerber@suse.de>
> Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> Cc: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
> Cc: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
> Signed-off-by: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
> ---
>  target-i386/cpu.c | 1 +
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> 
> diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.c b/target-i386/cpu.c
> index 7a779b1..ee7b4ac 100644
> --- a/target-i386/cpu.c
> +++ b/target-i386/cpu.c
> @@ -3134,6 +3134,7 @@ 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)) ||
> 

My bad, please disregard this one patch in the series -- an improved
version has already been committed as
a9bad65d2c1f61af74ce2ff43238d4b20bf81c3a.

Sorry about the noise (but please do pick up the first two patches).

Thanks!
Laszlo