[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20160308220541.GA29455@potion.brq.redhat.com>
Date: Tue, 8 Mar 2016 23:05:41 +0100
From: Radim Krčmář <rkrcmar@...hat.com>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>
Cc: Suravee Suthikulpanit <Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com>,
joro@...tes.org, bp@...en8.de, gleb@...nel.org,
alex.williamson@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, wei@...hat.com,
sherry.hurwitz@....com
Subject: Re: [PART1 RFC v2 07/10] svm: Add VMEXIT handlers for AVIC
2016-03-07 16:58+0100, Paolo Bonzini:
>> + case AVIC_INCMP_IPI_ERR_INV_TARGET:
>> + pr_err("%s: Invalid IPI target (icr=%#08x:%08x, idx=%u)\n",
>> + __func__, icrh, icrl, index);
>> + BUG();
>> + break;
>> + case AVIC_INCMP_IPI_ERR_INV_BK_PAGE:
>> + pr_err("%s: Invalid bk page (icr=%#08x:%08x, idx=%u)\n",
>> + __func__, icrh, icrl, index);
>> + BUG();
>> + break;
>
> Please use WARN(1, "%s: Invalid bk page (icr=%#08x:%08x, idx=%u)\n",
> __func__, icrh, icrl, index) (and likewise for invalid target) instead
> of BUG().
I think that if we hit one of these, then WARNs would just flood the
log. I'd prefer WARN_ONCE on AVIC_INCMP_IPI_ERR_INV_BK_PAGE.
(Btw. aren't icr and idx are pointless on this error? and the function
name should be printed by WARN.)
Invalid target is triggerable by the guest (by sending IPI to a
non-existent LAPIC), so warning log level seems too severe.
pr_info_ratelimited() or nothing would be better.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists