On 9/14/22 17:09, Alex Bennée wrote:
Now that MxTxAttrs encodes a CPU we should use that to figure it out.
This solves edge cases like accessing via gdbstub or qtest.
Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org>
Resolves: https://gitlab.com/qemu-project/qemu/-/issues/124
---
hw/intc/arm_gic.c | 39 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------------
1 file changed, 22 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/intc/arm_gic.c b/hw/intc/arm_gic.c
index 492b2421ab..7feedac735 100644
--- a/hw/intc/arm_gic.c
+++ b/hw/intc/arm_gic.c
@@ -56,17 +56,22 @@ static const uint8_t gic_id_gicv2[] = {
0x04, 0x00, 0x00, 0x00, 0x90, 0xb4, 0x2b, 0x00, 0x0d, 0xf0, 0x05, 0xb1
};
-static inline int gic_get_current_cpu(GICState *s)
+static inline int gic_get_current_cpu(GICState *s, MemTxAttrs attrs)
{
- if (!qtest_enabled() && s->num_cpu > 1) {
- return current_cpu->cpu_index;
- }
- return 0;
+ /*
+ * Something other than a CPU accessing the GIC would be a bug as
+ * would a CPU index higher than the GICState expects to be
+ * handling
+ */
+ g_assert(attrs.requester_cpu == 1);
Better without "== 1" -- this field ought to be boolean.
+ g_assert(attrs.requester_id < s->num_cpu);
Do we still need the qtest_enabled test to short circuit the num_cpu test within the
assert? I guess if tests aren't failing then perhaps we don't...
Otherwise,
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
r~
