On 17.02.2011, at 22:01, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-02-07 12:19, Jan Kiszka wrote:
>> We do not check them, and the only arch with non-empty implementations
>> always returns 0 (this is also true for qemu-kvm).
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Jan Kiszka <jan.kis...@siemens.com>
>> CC: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de>
>> ---
>> kvm.h | 5 ++---
>> target-i386/kvm.c | 8 ++------
>> target-ppc/kvm.c | 6 ++----
>> target-s390x/kvm.c | 6 ++----
>> 4 files changed, 8 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
>>
>
> ...
>
>> diff --git a/target-ppc/kvm.c b/target-ppc/kvm.c
>> index 93ecc57..bd4012a 100644
>> --- a/target-ppc/kvm.c
>> +++ b/target-ppc/kvm.c
>> @@ -256,14 +256,12 @@ int kvm_arch_pre_run(CPUState *env, struct kvm_run
>> *run)
>> return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -int kvm_arch_post_run(CPUState *env, struct kvm_run *run)
>> +void kvm_arch_post_run(CPUState *env, struct kvm_run *run)
>> {
>> - return 0;
>> }
>>
>> -int kvm_arch_process_irqchip_events(CPUState *env)
>> +void kvm_arch_process_irqchip_events(CPUState *env)
>> {
>> - return 0;
>> }
>
> Oops. Do we already have a built-bot for KVM-enabled PPC (and s390)
> targets somewhere?
Just before leaving for vacation I prepared a machine for each and gave stefan
access to them. Looks like they're not officially running though - will try to
look at this asap.
Alex
