On Thu, 21 Nov 2019 12:32:38 +0100
Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:

> On 11/21/19 12:10 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Wed, 20 Nov 2019 06:43:20 -0500
> > Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >   
> >> Let's move the resets into one function and switch by type, so we can
> >> use fallthroughs for shared reset actions.  
> > 
> > Doing that makes sense.
> >   
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
> >> ---
> >>  hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c |   3 +
> >>  target/s390x/cpu.c         | 111 ++++++++++++++++---------------------
> >>  2 files changed, 52 insertions(+), 62 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c b/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c
> >> index d3edeef0ad..c1d1440272 100644
> >> --- a/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c
> >> +++ b/hw/s390x/s390-virtio-ccw.c
> >> @@ -348,6 +348,9 @@ static void s390_machine_reset(MachineState *machine)
> >>          break;
> >>      case S390_RESET_LOAD_NORMAL:
> >>          CPU_FOREACH(t) {
> >> +            if (t == cs) {
> >> +                continue;
> >> +            }  
> > 
> > Hm, why is this needed now?  
> 
> The Ultravisor checks which reset is done to which cpu.
> So blindly resetting the calling cpu with a normal reset to then do a
> clear/initial reset will return an error.

Let's split this change out, then? The rest of the patch is a simple
refactoring.