On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 19:38:40 +1000 Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
> On 06/12/2014 04:31 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Thu, 12 Jun 2014 03:03:01 +1000 > > Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> wrote: > > > >> This implements an NMI interface for s390 machine. > >> > >> This removes #ifdef s390 branch in qmp_inject_nmi so new s390's > >> nmi_monitor_handler() callback is going to be used for NMI. > >> > >> Since nmi_monitor_handler()-calling code is platform independent, > >> CPUState::cpu_index is used instead of S390CPU::env.cpu_num. > >> There should not be any change in behaviour as both @cpu_index and > >> @cpu_num are global CPU numbers. > >> > >> Also, s390_cpu_restart() takes care of preforming operations in > >> the specific CPU thread so no extra measure is required here either. > >> > >> Since the only error s390_cpu_restart() can return is ENOSYS, convert > >> it to QERR_UNSUPPORTED. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> > >> --- > >> Changes: > >> v6: > >> * supported NMI interface > >> > >> v5: > >> * added ENOSYS -> QERR_UNSUPPORTED, qapi/qmp/qerror.h was added for this > >> > >> v4: > >> * s/\<nmi\>/nmi_monitor_handler/ > >> > >> v3: > >> * now contains both old code removal and new code insertion, easier to > >> track changes > >> > >> --- > >> Is there any good reason to have @cpu_num in addition to @cpu_index? > >> Just asking :) > >> --- > >> cpus.c | 14 -------------- > >> hw/s390x/s390-virtio.c | 31 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ > >> target-s390x/cpu.c | 1 + > >> 3 files changed, 32 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > >> > I pushed some version to g...@github.com:aik/qemu.git , branch nmi-v7 > Please have a look and give it a go - I do not have s390 kernel/images > handy. Thanks! Gave it a try with both of the machines: Triggering 'nmi' from the monitor still triggers the configured on_restart action, so this seems to work as well as before. > > It does not look like we really need a new file for NMI now. Yes, I think the v7 code looks fine.
