On 12/06/2011 02:35 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 6 December 2011 12:28, Avi Kivity <a...@redhat.com> wrote: > > On 12/01/2011 03:37 AM, bill4car...@gmail.com wrote: > >> + /* ??? Hack to map an additional page of ram for the secondary CPU > >> + startup code. I guess this works on real hardware because the > >> + BootROM happens to be in ROM/flash or in memory that isn't > >> clobbered > >> + until after Linux boots the secondary CPUs. */ > >> + ram_offset = qemu_ram_alloc(NULL, "vexpress.hack", 0x1000); > >> + cpu_register_physical_memory(SMP_BOOT_ADDR, 0x1000, > >> + ram_offset | IO_MEM_RAM); > > > It would be better to unhack this; short-term hacks tend to remain in > > the long term, and even after they're fixed we keep them for backwards > > compatibility. > > Do you have a better suggestion in this case? We've had the same > code in the realview board since 2007 when ARM SMP support was first > added...
No idea really since I don't fully understand what's going on. It's just a knee-jerk reaction to the word 'hack'. Can't we just do what real hardware does? > There's no particular back-compat implication here as far as I know: > the location of the secondary CPU holding pen code is irrelevant to > the actual guest being run. (On a real system it will be somewhere > inside the boot ROM.) Suppose you live migrate when the code is running there? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
