Message ID | 1459822643-4770-1-git-send-email-david@gibson.dropbear.id.au |
---|---|
State | New |
Headers | show |
On 5 April 2016 at 03:17, David Gibson <david@gibson.dropbear.id.au> wrote: > The following changes since commit 2e3a76ae3e47d502f9f0c4424b719945fba9d459: > > Merge remote-tracking branch 'remotes/pmaydell/tags/pull-target-arm-20160404' into staging (2016-04-04 17:43:39 +0100) > > are available in the git repository at: > > git://github.com/dgibson/qemu.git tags/ppc-for-2.6-20160405 > > for you to fetch changes up to efdaf797de009e194db89dcd8b171fa35181a6f2: > > vl: Move cpu_synchronize_all_states() into qemu_system_reset() (2016-04-05 10:49:10 +1000) > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > ppc patch queue for 2016-03-24 > > Three bugfixes for target-ppc, pseries machine type and related devices. > > 1. Fix a bug in the core code where kvm_vcpu_dirty would not be set > before the very first system reset. This meant that if things in > the reset path did their own cpu_synchronize_state() it would pull > stale data out of KVM. > > On ppc this, in combination with a previous cleanup meant that the > MSR would be zeroed before entry, instead of correctly having the > SF (64-bit mode) bit set. > > 2. Allow immediate detach of hot-added PCI devices which haven't yet > been announced to the guest. > > This fixes a regression: because of a case where we now defer > announcement of non-zero functions to the guest, an incorrect > hot-add of such a device can't be backed out until the add is > completed, which is counter-intuitive to say the least. > > 3. Fix migration of alternate interrupt locations. The location of > interrupt vectors can be affected by the LPCR, and we weren't > correctly recalculating this after migration of a non-standard LPCR > value. > > ---------------------------------------------------------------- > > Two of the three patches here began life as cleanups or preliminaries > for new features, however they also fix real bugs. They're > sufficiently small that I don't think including them for 2.6 is any > riskier than any other approach to fixing the bugs in question. Applied, thanks. -- PMM