On 18 October 2016 at 18:57, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 06:07:49PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Why do you want to un-property mp_affinity? Eventually it would
>> be nice for the machine model to be able to use it to set up
>> a specific NUMA configuration.
>
> I thought about
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 06:07:49PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 18 October 2016 at 17:22, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > I'll note that it's
> > accepted to reach into machine state through current_machine from
> > the machine's devices.
>
> That doesn't sound like a great idea to me -- where do we
On 18 October 2016 at 17:22, Andrew Jones wrote:
> I'll note that it's
> accepted to reach into machine state through current_machine from
> the machine's devices.
That doesn't sound like a great idea to me -- where do we
do it? A quick grep for uses of current_machine in hw/ shows only
hw/ppc/sp
On 18/10/2016 18:22, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 01:22:07PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 04:22:47PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
...
>>> OK, to proceed with this patch, since mp-affinity *is* currently a
>>> property, we can just change its default valu
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 01:22:07PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 04:22:47PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:18:29AM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 03:00:07PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 0
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 04:22:47PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:18:29AM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 03:00:07PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:20:22PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > > On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 1
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 11:18:29AM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 03:00:07PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:20:22PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > > On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:52:48AM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> > > > Modify all CPUs to call
On Tue, Oct 18, 2016 at 03:00:07PM +0200, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:20:22PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> > On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:52:48AM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> > > Modify all CPUs to call it from XXX_cpu_realizefn() function.
> > >
> > > Remove all the cannot
On Mon, Oct 17, 2016 at 05:20:22PM -0200, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:52:48AM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> > Modify all CPUs to call it from XXX_cpu_realizefn() function.
> >
> > Remove all the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet as
> > unsafe references have been mov
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 17:20:22 -0200
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:52:48AM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> > Modify all CPUs to call it from XXX_cpu_realizefn() function.
> >
> > Remove all the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet as
> > unsafe references have been moved to
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:52:48AM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> Modify all CPUs to call it from XXX_cpu_realizefn() function.
>
> Remove all the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet as
> unsafe references have been moved to cpu_exec_realizefn().
> (tested with QOM command provided by commit 4
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:52:48AM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> Modify all CPUs to call it from XXX_cpu_realizefn() function.
>
> Remove all the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet as
> unsafe references have been moved to cpu_exec_realizefn().
> (tested with QOM command provided by commit 4
On 17/10/2016 16:03, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:52:48AM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
>> Modify all CPUs to call it from XXX_cpu_realizefn() function.
>>
>> Remove all the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet as
>> unsafe references have been moved to cpu_exec_realizefn
On Sat, 15 Oct 2016 00:52:48 +0200
Laurent Vivier wrote:
> Modify all CPUs to call it from XXX_cpu_realizefn() function.
>
> Remove all the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet as
> unsafe references have been moved to cpu_exec_realizefn().
> (tested with QOM command provided by commit 4c315c
On Sat, Oct 15, 2016 at 12:52:48AM +0200, Laurent Vivier wrote:
> Modify all CPUs to call it from XXX_cpu_realizefn() function.
>
> Remove all the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet as
> unsafe references have been moved to cpu_exec_realizefn().
> (tested with QOM command provided by commit 4
Modify all CPUs to call it from XXX_cpu_realizefn() function.
Remove all the cannot_destroy_with_object_finalize_yet as
unsafe references have been moved to cpu_exec_realizefn().
(tested with QOM command provided by commit 4c315c27)
for arm:
Setting of cpu->mp_affinity is moved from arm_cpu_init
16 matches
Mail list logo