Paolo Bonzini writes:
> On 29/10/2018 22:39, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
>> I'm not convinced about adding an "assert(!user-mode)" to run_on_cpu.
>> Given that now it does not depend on the BQL, it could actually
>> work in user-mode if called. If we really wanted to make sure
>> that no user-mode wo
On 29/10/2018 22:39, Emilio G. Cota wrote:
> I'm not convinced about adding an "assert(!user-mode)" to run_on_cpu.
> Given that now it does not depend on the BQL, it could actually
> work in user-mode if called. If we really wanted to make sure
> that no user-mode would call it, then a compile-time
On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 16:34:49 +, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> Emilio G. Cota writes:
>
> > We don't pass a pointer to qemu_global_mutex anymore.
> >
> > Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson
> > Signed-off-by: Emilio G. Cota
>
> As discussed on IRC I don't fundamentally object to this being in
> cp
Emilio G. Cota writes:
> We don't pass a pointer to qemu_global_mutex anymore.
>
> Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson
> Signed-off-by: Emilio G. Cota
As discussed on IRC I don't fundamentally object to this being in
cpus-common given we have the other work queue stuff there. However
given it now
We don't pass a pointer to qemu_global_mutex anymore.
Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson
Signed-off-by: Emilio G. Cota
---
include/qom/cpu.h | 10 --
cpus-common.c | 2 +-
cpus.c| 5 -
3 files changed, 1 insertion(+), 16 deletions(-)
diff --git a/include/qom/cpu.h b/i
