On 02.09.2011, at 21:35, Scott Wood wrote: > On 09/02/2011 02:23 PM, Alexander Graf wrote: >> >> On 02.09.2011, at 20:14, Scott Wood wrote: >> >>> On 09/02/2011 10:12 AM, Alexander Graf wrote: >>>> >>>> Am 02.09.2011 um 01:08 schrieb Scott Wood <scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>: >>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Scott Wood <scottwood@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> >>>> >>>> Patch description missing. >>> >>> It's not missing, it's just brief. :-) >>> >>> I suppose you could add "The hardcoded behavior prevents SMP support. >>> QEMU shall specify the vcpu's PIR as the vcpu id". >> >> Ok, let me get my head around this. Before, PIR was forced to 0 by >> the setup code and set_sregs with PIR != 0 failed. Now it's simply >> vcpu_id which is already the correct value. Why didn't I run into >> this failure? Why did SMP work for me at all then? Shouldn't the >> guest be completely confused and find two CPU 0s? > > I was wondering about that myself. It looks like PIR isn't used much in > Linux on e500v2. There's no msgsnd. It's used to for > __secondary_hold_acknowledge, but that has a silent timeout. Interesting. Well - either way. Just resend with a proper patch description and I'll apply it :) Alex -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
