Currently, the cpuid passed from the device tree may still contain
non-affinity fields, which will cause arm_set_cpu_on failure.
Therefore, we mask the cpuid with affinity fields here to
improve qemu compatibility.

Signed-off-by: Yang Chuanlong <yangchuanlong@huawei.com>
---
 target/arm/arm-powerctl.c | 8 +++++++-
 1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/target/arm/arm-powerctl.c b/target/arm/arm-powerctl.c
index f77a950db6..ef9fec0b4d 100644
--- a/target/arm/arm-powerctl.c
+++ b/target/arm/arm-powerctl.c
@@ -31,7 +31,13 @@ CPUState *arm_get_cpu_by_id(uint64_t id)
 {
     CPUState *cpu;
 
-    DPRINTF("cpu %" PRId64 "\n", id);
+#ifdef TARGET_AARCH64
+    id &= ARM64_AFFINITY_MASK;
+#else
+    id &= ARM32_AFFINITY_MASK;
+#endif
+
+    DPRINTF("cpu %" PRId64 " after mask affinity\n", id);
 
     CPU_FOREACH(cpu) {
         ARMCPU *armcpu = ARM_CPU(cpu);
-- 
2.21.0

On Tue, 30 Apr 2019 at 04:22, Yang Chuanlong <yangchuanlong@huawei.com> wrote:
>
> Currently, the cpuid passed from the device tree may still contain
> non-affinity fields, which will cause arm_set_cpu_on failure.
> Therefore, we mask the cpuid with affinity fields here to
> improve qemu compatibility.
>
> Signed-off-by: Yang Chuanlong <yangchuanlong@huawei.com>
> ---
>  target/arm/arm-powerctl.c | 8 +++++++-
>  1 file changed, 7 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/arm/arm-powerctl.c b/target/arm/arm-powerctl.c
> index f77a950db6..ef9fec0b4d 100644
> --- a/target/arm/arm-powerctl.c
> +++ b/target/arm/arm-powerctl.c
> @@ -31,7 +31,13 @@ CPUState *arm_get_cpu_by_id(uint64_t id)
>  {
>      CPUState *cpu;
>
> -    DPRINTF("cpu %" PRId64 "\n", id);
> +#ifdef TARGET_AARCH64
> +    id &= ARM64_AFFINITY_MASK;
> +#else
> +    id &= ARM32_AFFINITY_MASK;
> +#endif
> +
> +    DPRINTF("cpu %" PRId64 " after mask affinity\n", id);
>
>      CPU_FOREACH(cpu) {
>          ARMCPU *armcpu = ARM_CPU(cpu);

Hi -- could you explain what the code path is where we
end up passing a wrong value into this function? I'm
wondering if this is the best place to fix it, or if maybe
the calling function is at fault.

Also, you can't use #ifdef TARGET_AARCH64 here to distinguish
a 64-bit from a 32-bit CPU, because the qemu-system-aarch64
binary (which is built with TARGET_AARCH64) also supports all
the 32-bit CPUs.

thanks
-- PMM

Patchew URL: https://patchew.org/QEMU/20190430031238.40499-1-yangchuanlong@huawei.com/



Hi,

This series failed the asan build test. Please find the testing commands and
their output below. If you have Docker installed, you can probably reproduce it
locally.

=== TEST SCRIPT BEGIN ===
#!/bin/bash
time make docker-test-debug@fedora TARGET_LIST=x86_64-softmmu J=14 NETWORK=1
=== TEST SCRIPT END ===




The full log is available at
http://patchew.org/logs/20190430031238.40499-1-yangchuanlong@huawei.com/testing.asan/?type=message.
---
Email generated automatically by Patchew [https://patchew.org/].
Please send your feedback to patchew-devel@redhat.com

Patchew URL: https://patchew.org/QEMU/20190430031238.40499-1-yangchuanlong@huawei.com/



Hi,

This series failed the docker-mingw@fedora build test. Please find the testing commands and
their output below. If you have Docker installed, you can probably reproduce it
locally.

=== TEST SCRIPT BEGIN ===
#!/bin/bash
time make docker-test-mingw@fedora SHOW_ENV=1 J=14 NETWORK=1
=== TEST SCRIPT END ===




The full log is available at
http://patchew.org/logs/20190430031238.40499-1-yangchuanlong@huawei.com/testing.docker-mingw@fedora/?type=message.
---
Email generated automatically by Patchew [https://patchew.org/].
Please send your feedback to patchew-devel@redhat.com