On 06/04/15 10:02, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 03/06/2015 19:58, Peter Crosthwaite wrote:
>> On Wed, Jun 3, 2015 at 10:08 AM, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
>>> Different CPUs can be in SMM or not at the same time, thus they
>>> will see different things where the chipset places SMRAM.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> target-i386/cpu-qom.h | 1 +
>>> target-i386/cpu.c | 14 ++++++++++++++
>>> 2 files changed, 15 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/target-i386/cpu-qom.h b/target-i386/cpu-qom.h
>>> index 31a0c1e..39cd878 100644
>>> --- a/target-i386/cpu-qom.h
>>> +++ b/target-i386/cpu-qom.h
>>> @@ -111,6 +111,7 @@ typedef struct X86CPU {
>>> /* in order to simplify APIC support, we leave this pointer to the
>>> user */
>>> struct DeviceState *apic_state;
>>> + struct MemoryRegion *cpu_as_root;
>>> } X86CPU;
>>>
>>> static inline X86CPU *x86_env_get_cpu(CPUX86State *env)
>>> diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.c b/target-i386/cpu.c
>>> index 523d0cd..23b57a9 100644
>>> --- a/target-i386/cpu.c
>>> +++ b/target-i386/cpu.c
>>> @@ -44,6 +44,7 @@
>>> #include "hw/qdev-properties.h"
>>> #include "hw/cpu/icc_bus.h"
>>> #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
>>> +#include "exec/address-spaces.h"
>>> #include "hw/xen/xen.h"
>>> #include "hw/i386/apic_internal.h"
>>> #endif
>>> @@ -2811,6 +2812,18 @@ static void x86_cpu_realizefn(DeviceState *dev,
>>> Error **errp)
>>> #endif
>>>
>>> mce_init(cpu);
>>> +
>>> +#ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
>>> + if (tcg_enabled()) {
>>> + cpu->cpu_as_root = g_new(MemoryRegion, 1);
>>> + cs->as = g_new(AddressSpace, 1);
>>> + memory_region_init_alias(cpu->cpu_as_root, OBJECT(cpu), "memory",
>>> + get_system_memory(), 0, ~0ull);
>>> + memory_region_set_enabled(cpu->cpu_as_root, true);
>>> + address_space_init(cs->as, cpu->cpu_as_root, "CPU");
>>> + }
>>> +#endif
>>> +
>>> qemu_init_vcpu(cs);
>>>
>>> /* Only Intel CPUs support hyperthreading. Even though QEMU fixes this
>>> @@ -2834,6 +2847,7 @@ static void x86_cpu_realizefn(DeviceState *dev, Error
>>> **errp)
>>> cpu_reset(cs);
>>>
>>> xcc->parent_realize(dev, &local_err);
>>> +
>>
>> This intentional?
>
> It's a remnant from a previous version, but I do prefer having a blank
> line before the error recovery part of a function.
(+1. In fact if it's a cascade of several labels, I might insert a blank
line before each label.)
Laszlo
>
> Paolo
>
>> Regards,
>> Peter
>>
>>> out:
>>> if (local_err != NULL) {
>>> error_propagate(errp, local_err);
>>> --
>>> 2.4.1
>>>
>>>
>>>
