On 2011-04-06 21:34, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 04/06/2011 02:27 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> Right, but honestly speaking, I don't know how this works for other arches. >>> >>> So, the best thing to do is to have a general design that can be used >>> by any architecture. Of course that we can also add a new command later >>> if needed. >> Well, I'm not sure "send a random interrupt to the core" makes >> much sense for ARM... So what are we actually trying to model here? >> Some sort of way to do "press a front panel switch" via remote monitor >> protocol? I guess you could have an API for boards to register any >> switches they had... > > http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/lnxinfo/v3r0m0/index.jsp?topic=/liaai/crashdump/liaaicrashdumpnmiipmi.htm > > If an OS is totally hosed (spinning with interrupts disabled), and NMI > can be used to generate a crash dump. > > It's a debug feature and modelling it exactly the way we are probably > makes sense for other architectures too. The real semantics are > basically force guest crash dump.
Right, it's a debugging tool. And that does not necessarily means it has to match real hardware. I could imagine scenarios where it could be helpful to direct the NMI to a specific core, e.g. in AMP setups if only one OS ran wild. Jan -- Siemens AG, Corporate Technology, CT T DE IT 1 Corporate Competence Center Embedded Linux
