[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <BN6PR1101MB2161BDB955216695E1951C2EA8019@BN6PR1101MB2161.namprd11.prod.outlook.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2022 18:02:23 +0000
From: "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@...el.com>
To: "Christopherson,, Sean" <seanjc@...gle.com>
CC: "linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
"x86@...nel.org" <x86@...nel.org>,
"kvm@...r.kernel.org" <kvm@...r.kernel.org>,
"tglx@...utronix.de" <tglx@...utronix.de>,
"mingo@...hat.com" <mingo@...hat.com>,
"bp@...en8.de" <bp@...en8.de>,
"dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com" <dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com>,
"hpa@...or.com" <hpa@...or.com>,
"pbonzini@...hat.com" <pbonzini@...hat.com>,
"Tian, Kevin" <kevin.tian@...el.com>
Subject: RE: [RESEND PATCH 4/6] x86/traps: add external_interrupt() to
dispatch external interrupts
> > +__visible noinstr void external_interrupt(struct pt_regs *regs,
> > + unsigned int vector)
> > +{
> > + unsigned int sysvec = vector - FIRST_SYSTEM_VECTOR;
> > +
> > + BUG_ON(vector < FIRST_EXTERNAL_VECTOR);
>
> Why not return an error up the stack? KVM and/or CPU bugs aren't unheard
> of.
> Dropping an IRQ obviously isn't ideal, but there's a non-zero chance that letting
> KVM WARN and kill the VM will keep the host alive and thus other VMs
> running. A somewhat sophisticated setup might even react to the VM being
> killed by migrating other VMs off the system and initiating host maintenance.
Make sense.
What about having it return a signed integer?
Powered by blists - more mailing lists