-
Alex Bennée authored
Basing the cpu_index on the number of currently allocated vCPUs fails when vCPUs aren't removed in a LIFO manner. This is especially true when we are allocating a cpu_index for each guest thread in linux-user where there is no ordering constraint on their allocation and de-allocation. [I've dropped the assert which is there to guard against out-of-order removal as this should probably be caught higher up the stack. Maybe we could just ifdef CONFIG_SOFTTMU it?] Signed-off-by:
Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by:
Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Acked-by:
Igor Mammedow <imammedo@redhat.com>
Cc: Nikolay Igotti <igotti@gmail.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20200520140541.30256-13-alex.bennee@linaro.org>Alex Bennée authoredBasing the cpu_index on the number of currently allocated vCPUs fails when vCPUs aren't removed in a LIFO manner. This is especially true when we are allocating a cpu_index for each guest thread in linux-user where there is no ordering constraint on their allocation and de-allocation. [I've dropped the assert which is there to guard against out-of-order removal as this should probably be caught higher up the stack. Maybe we could just ifdef CONFIG_SOFTTMU it?] Signed-off-by:
Alex Bennée <alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Reviewed-by:
Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
Acked-by:
Igor Mammedow <imammedo@redhat.com>
Cc: Nikolay Igotti <igotti@gmail.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Eduardo Habkost <ehabkost@redhat.com>
Message-Id: <20200520140541.30256-13-alex.bennee@linaro.org>
Loading