On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 19:51:01 +0530
Bharata B Rao <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 06, 2016 at 02:01:14PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Wed, 6 Jul 2016 14:29:19 +0530
> > Bharata B Rao <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > > cpu_index is used as migration_id by default. For machine type
> > > versions that set use-migration-id property, cpu_dt_it is returned.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Bharata B Rao <bhar...@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
> > > ---
> > > target-ppc/translate_init.c | 12 ++++++++++++
> > > 1 file changed, 12 insertions(+)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/target-ppc/translate_init.c b/target-ppc/translate_init.c
> > > index efd6b88..9ca2f5e 100644
> > > --- a/target-ppc/translate_init.c
> > > +++ b/target-ppc/translate_init.c
> > > @@ -10359,6 +10359,17 @@ static gchar *ppc_gdb_arch_name(CPUState *cs)
> > > #endif
> > > }
> > >
> > > +static int ppc_cpu_get_migration_id(CPUState *cs)
> > > +{
> > > + PowerPCCPU *cpu = POWERPC_CPU(cs);
> > > +
> > > + if (cs->use_migration_id) {
> > > + return (int) cpu->cpu_dt_id;
> > Could cpu_dt_id have value bigger than 32bit int? If yes, it's not safe
> > to do so, that's the reason why I'm going to use index in possible_cpus
> > on ARM and for the sake of uniformity do the same for x86 (even though
> > it's possible to use 32bit APIC ID).
>
> For the existing max_cpus limit, 32 bit should be fine, but obviously
> that is not good and future safe.
>
And BTW, cpu_dt_id is actually an int
> I had a brief look at the implementation around possible_cpus in
> x86, let me see if I can do something similar for generating stable
> ids for PowerPC. I thought device tree ID would be our stable id, but
> that being 64 bit and migration code requiring 32 bit value isn't
> helping :(
>
Yes you have stable ids, look at my other answer to this patch.
> Regards,
> Bharata.
>
