On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:29:26 +1000
David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:
> Now that we allow CPU hot unplug on a few platforms, we can end up in a
> situation where we don't have a CPU with index 0. Or at least we could,
> if we didn't have code to explicitly prohibit unplug of CPU 0.
>
> Longer term we want to allow CPU 0 unplug, this patch is an early step in
> allowing this, by removing an assumption in the monitor code that CPU 0
> always exists.
>
> Signed-off-by: Cédric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org>
> [dwg: Rewrote commit message to better explain background]
> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
> ---
> monitor.c | 2 +-
> 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> Anyone want to volunteer to take this through their tree? If not, I
> can take it through my ppc tree.
Please do.
Reviewed-by: Luiz Capitulino <lcapitul...@redhat.com>
>
> diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c
> index 8bb8bbf..83c4edf 100644
> --- a/monitor.c
> +++ b/monitor.c
> @@ -1025,7 +1025,7 @@ int monitor_set_cpu(int cpu_index)
> CPUState *mon_get_cpu(void)
> {
> if (!cur_mon->mon_cpu) {
> - monitor_set_cpu(0);
> + monitor_set_cpu(first_cpu->cpu_index);
> }
> cpu_synchronize_state(cur_mon->mon_cpu);
> return cur_mon->mon_cpu;
