Am 13.09.2013 17:29, schrieb Jason J. Herne:
> On 09/05/2013 08:38 AM, Andreas Färber wrote:
>> Am 01.08.2013 16:12, schrieb Jason J. Herne:
>>> From: "Jason J. Herne" <jjhe...@us.ibm.com>
>>>
>>> Implement hot_add_cpu for S390 to allow hot plugging of cpus.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Jason J. Herne <jjhe...@us.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>> hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c | 3 +++
>>> target-s390x/cpu.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>> target-s390x/cpu.h | 2 ++
>>> 3 files changed, 37 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c b/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c
>>> index b469960..30b6a48 100644
>>> --- a/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c
>>> +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c
>>> @@ -117,6 +117,9 @@ static QEMUMachine ccw_machine = {
>>> .alias = "s390-ccw",
>>> .desc = "VirtIO-ccw based S390 machine",
>>> .init = ccw_init,
>>> +#if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
>>> + .hot_add_cpu = ccw_hot_add_cpu,
>>> +#endif
>>
>> I doubt this #ifdeffery is necessary here?
>>
>
> This was needed because ccw_hot_add_cpu calls s390_cpu_addr2state which
> is wrapped in the very same ifdef.
This whole file should never get compiled for CONFIG_USER_ONLY.
> However, the offending line is this:
>
> model_str = s390_cpu_addr2state(0)->env.cpu_model_str;
>
> Since we're doing away with that line anyway I can probably remove that
> ifdef. However, does it make sense to have a cpu-add command for the
> linux-user target?
>
> Also, do you know when your patch to remove the model string will hit
> the master branch?
I've pushed it to qom-cpu-next branch for now, suggest to rebase on
that. It all depends on when I get to review all the pending patches and
respin some interfering ones and then get someone to pull, which is
outside of my control.
Cheers,
Andreas
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
