From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:59849)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>) id 1RB5nt-0005G9-J1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:17:09 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>) id 1RB5nn-0005jL-RB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:17:05 -0400
Received: from mtagate3.uk.ibm.com ([194.196.100.163]:52611)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>) id 1RB5nn-0005ij-K5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Oct 2011 10:16:59 -0400
Received: from d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com
	(d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.38.233])
	by mtagate3.uk.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id p94EGsbq018562
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 14:16:54 GMT
Received: from d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com
	[9.149.37.217])
	by d06nrmr1507.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with
	ESMTP id p94EGrc12539682
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:16:53 +0100
Received: from d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1])
	by d06av06.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with
	ESMTP id p94LGneC005527
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 4 Oct 2011 15:16:50 -0600
Message-ID: <4E8B154F.7050007@de.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 04 Oct 2011 16:16:47 +0200
From: Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <4E8AEDD9.1000401@de.ibm.com>	<4E8AF7CB.9070600@suse.de>
	<4E8B0E8C.9030609@de.ibm.com>
	<CAFEAcA-_dqxwWhuOhsGxXHNfh4bayJZ3tqjCdJ_W174QX-y=DQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-_dqxwWhuOhsGxXHNfh4bayJZ3tqjCdJ_W174QX-y=DQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] s390: Fix cpu shutdown for KVM
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Carsten Otte <cotte@de.ibm.com>, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 04/10/11 15:56, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 4 October 2011 14:47, Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@de.ibm.com> wrote:
>> +     * We can only deliver interrupts to (interrupt) enabled CPUs.
>> +     * We dont call kvm_s390_add_running_cpu here, since CPUs in enabled wait
>> +     * will wait inside the kernel (no exit). Therefore, the targeted
>> +     * CPUs was neither disabled waiting or stopped for qemu.
> 
> Grammar nits, since I'm commenting anyway:
>  "don't"
>  "neither disabled waiting nor stopped"

Ok. Alex can you fix that up or do you want a new patch?

> This makes the ICPT_CPU_STOP and ICPT_WAITPSW cases identical,
> right? You should just fold them together.

Yes, at the moment they are identical.
I am still thinking about some additional changes that will make them separate again
due to their usage in Linux:
- disabled wait usually indicates a kernel panic
- stop is called during cpu hot unplug and during shutdown for the last cpu

So on disabled wait we might want to perform extra logging etc, but I dont know yet.
Should I merge them anyway?

Christian