On Wed, 21 Sep 2016 15:29:26 +1000
David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote:

> Now that we allow CPU hot unplug on a few platforms, we can end up in a
> situation where we don't have a CPU with index 0.  Or at least we could,
> if we didn't have code to explicitly prohibit unplug of CPU 0.
> 
> Longer term we want to allow CPU 0 unplug, this patch is an early step in
> allowing this, by removing an assumption in the monitor code that CPU 0
> always exists.
> 
> Signed-off-by: C├ędric Le Goater <c...@kaod.org>
> [dwg: Rewrote commit message to better explain background]
> Signed-off-by: David Gibson <da...@gibson.dropbear.id.au>
Reviewed-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>

> ---
>  monitor.c | 2 +-
>  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> Anyone want to volunteer to take this through their tree?  If not, I
> can take it through my ppc tree.
> 
> diff --git a/monitor.c b/monitor.c
> index 8bb8bbf..83c4edf 100644
> --- a/monitor.c
> +++ b/monitor.c
> @@ -1025,7 +1025,7 @@ int monitor_set_cpu(int cpu_index)
>  CPUState *mon_get_cpu(void)
>  {
>      if (!cur_mon->mon_cpu) {
> -        monitor_set_cpu(0);
> +        monitor_set_cpu(first_cpu->cpu_index);
>      }
>      cpu_synchronize_state(cur_mon->mon_cpu);
>      return cur_mon->mon_cpu;


Reply via email to