On Mon, 16 Mar 2020 22:48:45 +0530
Mahesh J Salgaonkar <mah...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 2020-03-17 00:26:07 Tue, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > The option is called "FWNMI", and it involves more than just machine
> > checks, also machine checks can be delivered without the FWNMI option,
> > so re-name various things to reflect that.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npig...@gmail.com>
> > ---
> > hw/ppc/spapr.c | 28 ++++++++++++++--------------
> > hw/ppc/spapr_caps.c | 14 +++++++-------
> > hw/ppc/spapr_events.c | 14 +++++++-------
> > hw/ppc/spapr_rtas.c | 17 +++++++++--------
> > include/hw/ppc/spapr.h | 27 +++++++++++++++++----------
> > tests/qtest/libqos/libqos-spapr.h | 2 +-
> > 6 files changed, 55 insertions(+), 47 deletions(-)
> >
> [...]
> > @@ -626,14 +626,14 @@ SpaprCapabilityInfo capability_table[SPAPR_CAP_NUM] =
> > {
> > .type = "bool",
> > .apply = cap_ccf_assist_apply,
> > },
> > - [SPAPR_CAP_FWNMI_MCE] = {
> > - .name = "fwnmi-mce",
> > - .description = "Handle fwnmi machine check exceptions",
> > - .index = SPAPR_CAP_FWNMI_MCE,
> > + [SPAPR_CAP_FWNMI] = {
> > + .name = "fwnmi",
>
> I guess this should be fine and should hit QEMU 5.0 release so that we
> don't end up with two different CAP names for 5.0 and future releases.
>
Yeah we really want this patch and the next one (which affects migration) to
go to 5.0.
> Thanks,
> -Mahesh.
>
