From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:33275) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1StDJa-0005gO-J5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 03:44:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1StDJR-0001We-O6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 03:44:26 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:14673) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1StDJR-0001WU-Gl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Jul 2012 03:44:17 -0400 Message-ID: <500D00C5.7090003@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 23 Jul 2012 09:44:05 +0200 From: Igor Mammedov MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4FFECC8A.5030501@redhat.com> <1342099350-11994-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1342099350-11994-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] MP initialization protocol differs between cpu families, and for P6 and onward models it is up to CPU to decide if it will be BSP using this protocol, so try to model this. However there is no point in implementing MP initialization protocol in qemu. Thus first CPU is always marked as BSP. List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: aliguori@us.ibm.com, ehabkost@redhat.com, gleb@redhat.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, blauwirbel@gmail.com, avi@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, afaerber@suse.de Hello Gleb, Is this v2 patch more acceptable then v1?