[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <c105c670-6aec-32cd-d32b-30642819323e@huawei.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Sep 2017 19:51:56 +0800
From: gengdongjiu <gengdongjiu@...wei.com>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@...aro.org>
CC: James Morse <james.morse@....com>,
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@...hat.com>,
Igor Mammedov <imammedo@...hat.com>,
Zhaoshenglong <zhaoshenglong@...wei.com>,
Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"QEMU Developers" <qemu-devel@...gnu.org>,
qemu-arm <qemu-arm@...gnu.org>, kvm-devel <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"edk2-devel@...ts.01.org" <edk2-devel@...ts.01.org>,
Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@...aro.org>,
Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
Tyler Baicar <tbaicar@...eaurora.org>,
Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@...aro.org>,
"Ingo Molnar" <mingo@...nel.org>, "bp@...e.de" <bp@...e.de>,
Shiju Jose <shiju.jose@...wei.com>,
"zjzhang@...eaurora.org" <zjzhang@...eaurora.org>,
arm-mail-list <linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>,
"kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu" <kvmarm@...ts.cs.columbia.edu>,
"lkml - Kernel Mailing List" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org" <linux-acpi@...r.kernel.org>,
"devel@...ica.org" <devel@...ica.org>,
"John Garry" <john.garry@...wei.com>,
Jonathan Cameron <jonathan.cameron@...wei.com>,
Shameerali Kolothum Thodi
<shameerali.kolothum.thodi@...wei.com>,
huangdaode <huangdaode@...ilicon.com>,
"Wangzhou (B)" <wangzhou1@...ilicon.com>,
Huangshaoyu <huangshaoyu@...wei.com>,
Wuquanming <wuquanming@...wei.com>,
Linuxarm <linuxarm@...wei.com>,
"Zhengqiang (turing)" <zhengqiang10@...wei.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v11 6/6] target-arm: kvm64: Handle SError interrupt for
the guest OS
On 2017/9/13 18:52, Peter Maydell wrote:
> This question seems to be not really related to the review
> comment that it is responding to.
>
> (1) If the host does not support notifying us about
> errors, then there is clearly nothing to do in this
> code, because we will never get a notification.
>
> (2) If the host does support notifying us about errors,
> but we choose not to expose RAS to the guest, then
> there's not much to do either. We probably just want
> to take whatever the default behaviour is for any
> application when it touches memory that's bad.
> We definitely don't want to tell the guest anything.
>
> (3) If the host supports notification, and we choose
> to expose RAS to the guest, then we need to do
> whatever we have to do to notify the guest.
>
> If we're in this signal handler and also
> arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_RAS) is false then that
> is case (2), and my point is that doing anything with
> the guest 'syndrome' value looks like the wrong thing.
Peter,
your explanation is clear. OK, understand, thanks.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists