On Tue Jan 28, 2025 at 4:43 PM AEST, Harsh Prateek Bora wrote:
>
>
> On 1/27/25 15:56, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org>
>> ---
>> target/ppc/excp_helper.c | 6 ++----
>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 4 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/target/ppc/excp_helper.c b/target/ppc/excp_helper.c
>> index 8956466db1d..b08cd53688c 100644
>> --- a/target/ppc/excp_helper.c
>> +++ b/target/ppc/excp_helper.c
>> @@ -19,6 +19,7 @@
>> #include "qemu/osdep.h"
>> #include "qemu/main-loop.h"
>> #include "qemu/log.h"
>> +#include "system/tcg.h"
>> #include "system/system.h"
>> #include "system/runstate.h"
>> #include "cpu.h"
>> @@ -30,7 +31,6 @@
>> #include "trace.h"
>>
>> #ifdef CONFIG_TCG
>> -#include "system/tcg.h"
>> #include "exec/helper-proto.h"
>> #include "exec/cpu_ldst.h"
>> #endif
>> @@ -443,13 +443,11 @@ void helper_attn(CPUPPCState *env)
>> static void powerpc_mcheck_checkstop(CPUPPCState *env)
>> {
>> /* KVM guests always have MSR[ME] enabled */
>> -#ifdef CONFIG_TCG
>> if (FIELD_EX64(env->msr, MSR, ME)) {
>> return;
>> }
>> -
>> + assert(tcg_enabled());
>
> Shouldn't this be a no-op if not TCG ?
>
> Nick, please advise ?
If KVM, I think we would rather catch that it got called instead of
no-op.
At this point the guest is crashed, so it's not overly rude to
assert. I'm okay with this.
Thanks,
Nick
