On 13/06/2017 21:02, Eduardo Habkost wrote: >> @@ -101,16 +101,18 @@ static void hv_test_dev_control(void *opaque, hwaddr >> addr, uint64_t data, >> uint8_t sint = data & 0xFF; >> uint8_t vcpu_id = (data >> 8ULL) & 0xFF; > > vcpu_id risks being confused KVM's vcpu_id (which is the CPU APIC > ID in x86). If you are already touching this code, this could be > renamed to vp_index to avoid confusion.
Actually the VP_INDEX is _also_ the vcpu_id. Should we just document that KVM makes the VP_INDEX equal to the CPU APIC id, and adjust patch 5 accordingly? Paolo
