On 07/03/2014 05:11 PM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > 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.
That does not seem helping though :-/ -- Alexey