On Tue, 18 Oct 2016 11:34:55 -0200
Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 13, 2016 at 11:52:37AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > Signed-off-by: Igor Mammedov <imamm...@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  hw/acpi/cpu.c | 5 +++++
> >  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+)
> > 
> > diff --git a/hw/acpi/cpu.c b/hw/acpi/cpu.c
> > index 902f5c9..5ac89fe 100644
> > --- a/hw/acpi/cpu.c
> > +++ b/hw/acpi/cpu.c
> > @@ -531,6 +531,11 @@ void build_cpus_aml(Aml *table, MachineState *machine, 
> > CPUHotplugFeatures opts,
> >                  apic->flags = cpu_to_le32(1);
> >                  break;
> >              }
> > +            case ACPI_APIC_LOCAL_X2APIC: {
> > +                AcpiMadtProcessorX2Apic *apic = (void *)madt_buf->data;
> > +                apic->flags = cpu_to_le32(1);
> > +                break;
> > +            }  
> 
> Shouldn't this patch be applied before 01/13 to avoid triggering
> the assert() below?
There is no AcpiMadtProcessorX2Apic before 1/13,

how about squashing this patch into 1/13, that should be cleaner.

> 
> >              default:
> >                  assert(0);
> >              }
> > -- 
> > 2.7.4
> >   
> 


Reply via email to