On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 05:32:13PM +0000, Roman Kagan wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 11:23:01AM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Mon, Jun 17, 2019 at 01:48:59PM +0000, Roman Kagan wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 15, 2019 at 05:05:05PM -0300, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > > The current default value for hv-spinlocks is 0xFFFFFFFF (meaning
> > > > "never retry"). However, the value is stored as a signed
> > > > integer, making the getter of the hv-spinlocks QOM property
> > > > return -1 instead of 0xFFFFFFFF.
> > > >
> > > > Fix this by changing the type of X86CPU::hyperv_spinlock_attempts
> > > > to uint32_t. This has no visible effect to guest operating
> > > > systems, affecting just the behavior of the QOM getter.
> > > >
> > > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com>
> > > > ---
> > > > target/i386/cpu.h | 2 +-
> > > > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > >
> > > Reviewed-by: Roman Kagan <rka...@virtuozzo.com>
> > >
> > > That said, it's tempting to just nuke qdev_prop_spinlocks and make
> > > hv-spinlocks a regular DEFINE_PROP_UINT32...
> >
> > Agreed. The only difference is that we would validate the
> > property at realize time instead of object_property_set().
>
> Right. But currently it's validated to be no less than 0xfff and no
> bigger than 0xffffffff. The latter check would become unnecessary, and
> I'm unable to find any reason to do the former (neither spec references
> nor the log messages of the commits that introduced it).
The 0xFFF lower limit was originally introduced by commit
28f52cc04d34 ("hyper-v: introduce Hyper-V support infrastructure").
Vadim, do you know where the 0xFFF limit comes from?
--
Eduardo
