From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48996) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0mZp-0008WG-6F for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 04:02:06 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0mZl-0007Jq-Vq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 04:02:05 -0400 Received: from mail-pa0-f41.google.com ([209.85.220.41]:35383) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Z0mZl-0007JJ-R0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 04:02:01 -0400 Received: by pacyx8 with SMTP id yx8so8631587pac.2 for ; Fri, 05 Jun 2015 01:02:01 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <55715771.2080103@ozlabs.ru> Date: Fri, 05 Jun 2015 18:01:53 +1000 From: Alexey Kardashevskiy MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1433478358-993-1-git-send-email-bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1433478358-993-2-git-send-email-bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <557133F0.1040703@ozlabs.ru> <20150605070758.GC25832@in.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <20150605070758.GC25832@in.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=koi8-r; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 1/8] spapr: Consider max_cpus during xics initialization List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: bharata@linux.vnet.ibm.com Cc: thuth@redhat.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, agraf@suse.de, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, tyreld@linux.vnet.ibm.com, nfont@linux.vnet.ibm.com, david@gibson.dropbear.id.au On 06/05/2015 05:07 PM, Bharata B Rao wrote: > On Fri, Jun 05, 2015 at 03:30:24PM +1000, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> On 06/05/2015 02:25 PM, Bharata B Rao wrote: >>> Use max_cpus instead of smp_cpus when intializating xics system. Also >>> report max_cpus in ibm,interrupt-server-ranges device tree property of >>> interrupt controller node. >>> >>> Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao >>> --- >>> hw/ppc/spapr.c | 7 +++---- >>> 1 file changed, 3 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-) >>> >>> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c >>> index acc7233..9270234 100644 >>> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c >>> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c >>> @@ -308,7 +308,7 @@ static void *spapr_create_fdt_skel(hwaddr initrd_base, >>> GString *hypertas = g_string_sized_new(256); >>> GString *qemu_hypertas = g_string_sized_new(256); >>> uint32_t refpoints[] = {cpu_to_be32(0x4), cpu_to_be32(0x4)}; >>> - uint32_t interrupt_server_ranges_prop[] = {0, cpu_to_be32(smp_cpus)}; >>> + uint32_t interrupt_server_ranges_prop[] = {0, cpu_to_be32(max_cpus)}; >>> int smt = kvmppc_smt_threads(); >>> unsigned char vec5[] = {0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x0, 0x80}; >>> QemuOpts *opts = qemu_opts_find(qemu_find_opts("smp-opts"), NULL); >>> @@ -1454,9 +1454,8 @@ static void ppc_spapr_init(MachineState *machine) >>> >>> /* Set up Interrupt Controller before we create the VCPUs */ >>> spapr->icp = xics_system_init(machine, >>> - DIV_ROUND_UP(smp_cpus * kvmppc_smt_threads(), >>> - smp_threads), >>> - XICS_IRQS); >>> + DIV_ROUND_UP(max_cpus * kvmppc_smt_threads(), >>> + smp_threads), XICS_IRQS); >> >> >> Please do not change the formatting of "XICS_IRQS);". > > Hmmm why ? I thought I saved a line! Looks weird. There were 3 parameters, aligned. Now there are two and third one hides behind DIV_ROUND_UP. And we can afford an extra line ;) And this change is not related to what the patch does, the patch does s/smp_cpus/max_cpus/ and when I see another unrelated change - this confuses me. > Again checkpatch.pl doesn't complain. Well, you can ignore me - after all I am not the one to takes these patches further :) -- Alexey