On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 02:16:39PM -0400, Bandan Das wrote: > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Thu, Jul 14, 2016 at 06:54:33PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > >> BSP is assumed to always present in QEMU code, so > >> untile that assumptions are gone, deny removal request. > >> In another words QEMU won't support BSP hot-unplug. > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com> > >> --- > >> hw/i386/pc.c | 7 +++++++ > >> 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+) > >> > >> diff --git a/hw/i386/pc.c b/hw/i386/pc.c > >> index 5a67f15..33c5f97 100644 > >> --- a/hw/i386/pc.c > >> +++ b/hw/i386/pc.c > >> @@ -1751,10 +1751,17 @@ out: > >> static void pc_cpu_unplug_request_cb(HotplugHandler *hotplug_dev, > >> DeviceState *dev, Error **errp) > >> { > >> + int idx; > >> HotplugHandlerClass *hhc; > >> Error *local_err = NULL; > >> PCMachineState *pcms = PC_MACHINE(hotplug_dev); > >> > >> + pc_find_cpu_slot(pcms, CPU(dev), &idx); > > > > Looks fragile: if one day we create any TYPE_CPU object that is > > not in possible_cpus array, idx is undefined. I suggest > > initializing idx to -1 above. > > Or just let pc_find_cpu_slot universally set it to -1 since > this series assumes that -1 means index isn't valid.
I think it would be more intuitive if pc_find_cpu_slot() didn't touch *idx if no slot is found. But both ways sound good to me. -- Eduardo