Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> writes: > On 06/23/2014 11:32 PM, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >> On 06/16/2014 06:37 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>> >>> On 16.06.14 10:33, Alexey Kardashevskiy wrote: >>>> On 06/16/2014 05:16 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>>>> On Sat, 14 Jun 2014 12:41:50 +1000 >>>>> Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> On 06/13/2014 04:00 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: >>>>>>> On Fri, 13 Jun 2014 13:36:58 +1000 >>>>>>> Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> This implements an NMI interface for s390 and s390-ccw machines. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> 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. >>>>>>> I find this paragraph a bit confusing; I'd just remove it. >>>>>> Besides bad english (please feel free to adjust it), what else is >>>>>> confusing >>>>>> here? I put it there because the spapr patch makes use of >>>>>> async_run_on_cpu() and maintainers may ask why I do not do the same for >>>>>> other platforms. This way I hoped I could reduce number of versions to >>>>>> post :) >>>>> What about >>>>> >>>>> "Note that s390_cpu_restart() already takes care of the specified cpu, >>>>> so we don't need to schedule via async_run_on_cpu()." >>>> I fail to see how exactly this is better or different but ok :) >>>> >>>> >>>> Alex, should I repost it with Cornelia's suggestion? What should happen >>>> next to this patchset? Who is supposed to pick it up? Thanks. >>> >>> Just post v8 of that single patch with the right message-id as reference. I >>> can pick up the patches, but I'd like at least an ack from Paolo on the >>> whole set. >> >> >> Anybody, ping? Or we are waiting till x86 machines got QOM'ed and then I'll >> repost it with x86 NMI handler? Thanks! > > > Paolo promised to ack (in irc) and obviously forgot :) Should I give up and > stop bothering noble people? :)
No, you should politely bother them again.