From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55564)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1ScwYP-00037i-CN
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 06:36:31 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1ScwYJ-0005wE-6q
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 06:36:28 -0400
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:37017 helo=mx2.suse.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1ScwYJ-0005w8-0V
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 08 Jun 2012 06:36:23 -0400
Message-ID: <4FD1D5A2.8090008@suse.de>
Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2012 12:36:18 +0200
From: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1337742502-28565-1-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de>
	<1337742502-28565-5-git-send-email-afaerber@suse.de>
	<20120608082006.GA22512@thinkpad.mammed.net>
	<4FD1C1AF.2020208@suse.de> <4FD1D243.7090600@siemens.com>
In-Reply-To: <4FD1D243.7090600@siemens.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH qom-next 04/59] pc: Add CPU as
	/machine/cpu[n]
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: Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com>, Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>, "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Igor Mammedov <niallain@gmail.com>

Am 08.06.2012 12:21, schrieb Jan Kiszka:
> On 2012-06-08 11:11, Andreas F=E4rber wrote:
>> >From what I understand about the x86 modeling, the only case this
>> matters is if you hot-unplug CPU 0, right? Question is, what happens
>> with the APIC then? I would guess the remaining n-1 CPUs still want to
>> access the APIC
>=20
> APICs are per-CPU, each has its own.

Uh, seems I'm seriously confusing APIC with something else then...

Anyway, if each CPU always has its own APIC there's no reason to link<>
them. It should be a child<> and it should be initialized in-place.

Igor, can you please look into that?

In that case the only open issue would be whether to use cpu_index or
the APIC ID as the property name in this patch.

Andreas

--=20
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=F6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=FCrnbe=
rg