On Tue, 10 Jun 2014 16:18:01 +1000 Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> wrote:
> This defines a nmi_monitor_handler() callback for s390 CPU class. > > This removes #ifdef s390 branch in qmp_inject_nmi so new s390's > nmi_monitor_handler() callback is going to be used for NMI. > > Since nmi_monitor_handler()-calling code is platform independent, > CPUState::cpu_index is used instead of S390CPU::env.cpu_num. > There should not be any change in behaviour as both @cpu_index and > @cpu_num are global CPU numbers. > > Also, s390_cpu_restart() takes care of preforming operations in > the specific CPU thread so no extra measure is required here either. > > Since the only error s390_cpu_restart() can return is ENOSYS, convert > it to QERR_UNSUPPORTED. That's an improvement over the current check for == -1. > > Signed-off-by: Alexey Kardashevskiy <a...@ozlabs.ru> > --- > Changes: > v5: > * added ENOSYS -> QERR_UNSUPPORTED, qapi/qmp/qerror.h was added for this > > v4: > * s/\<nmi\>/nmi_monitor_handler/ > > v3: > * now contains both old code removal and new code insertion, easier to > track changes > > --- > Is there any good reason to have @cpu_num in addition to @cpu_index? > Just asking :) > --- > cpus.c | 14 -------------- > target-s390x/cpu.c | 9 +++++++++ > 2 files changed, 9 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com>
