On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 03:46:05PM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote: > 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.
It would work, too. I assume you will squash it on v4 of 01/13. -- Eduardo