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

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

Re: [PATCH v11 6/6] target-arm: kvm64: Handle SError interrupt for the guest OS

On 13 September 2017 at 08:52, gengdongjiu wrote: > > > On 2017/9/12 0:39, Peter Maydell wrote: > +return kvm_vcpu_ioctl(CPU(cpu), KVM_ARM_SEI, ); This looks odd. If we don't have the RAS extension why do we need to do anything at all here ? >>> This is

Re: [PATCH v11 6/6] target-arm: kvm64: Handle SError interrupt for the guest OS

On 13 September 2017 at 08:52, gengdongjiu wrote: > > > On 2017/9/12 0:39, Peter Maydell wrote: > +return kvm_vcpu_ioctl(CPU(cpu), KVM_ARM_SEI, ); This looks odd. If we don't have the RAS extension why do we need to do anything at all here ? >>> This is because Qemu may need

Re: [PATCH v11 6/6] target-arm: kvm64: Handle SError interrupt for the guest OS

On 2017/9/12 0:39, Peter Maydell wrote: +return kvm_vcpu_ioctl(CPU(cpu), KVM_ARM_SEI, ); >>> This looks odd. If we don't have the RAS extension why do we need to do >>> anything at all here ? >> This is because Qemu may need to support non-RAS extension as discussed with >> ARM James

Re: [PATCH v11 6/6] target-arm: kvm64: Handle SError interrupt for the guest OS

On 2017/9/12 0:39, Peter Maydell wrote: +return kvm_vcpu_ioctl(CPU(cpu), KVM_ARM_SEI, ); >>> This looks odd. If we don't have the RAS extension why do we need to do >>> anything at all here ? >> This is because Qemu may need to support non-RAS extension as discussed with >> ARM James

Re: [PATCH v11 6/6] target-arm: kvm64: Handle SError interrupt for the guest OS

On 11 September 2017 at 16:17, gengdongjiu wrote: >> On 18 August 2017 at 15:23, Dongjiu Geng wrote: >> > +static int kvm_inject_arm_sei(CPUState *cs) { >> > +ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(cs); >> > +CPUARMState *env = >env; >> > + >> > +

Re: [PATCH v11 6/6] target-arm: kvm64: Handle SError interrupt for the guest OS

On 11 September 2017 at 16:17, gengdongjiu wrote: >> On 18 August 2017 at 15:23, Dongjiu Geng wrote: >> > +static int kvm_inject_arm_sei(CPUState *cs) { >> > +ARMCPU *cpu = ARM_CPU(cs); >> > +CPUARMState *env = >env; >> > + >> > +unsigned long syndrome = env->exception.vaddress; >> >

Re: [PATCH v11 6/6] target-arm: kvm64: Handle SError interrupt for the guest OS

Hi peter, > > On 18 August 2017 at 15:23, Dongjiu Geng wrote: > > When guest OS happens SError interrupt(SEI), it will trap to host. > > Host firstly calls memory failure to deal with this error and decide > > whether it needs to deliver SIGBUS signal to userspace. The

Re: [PATCH v11 6/6] target-arm: kvm64: Handle SError interrupt for the guest OS

Hi peter, > > On 18 August 2017 at 15:23, Dongjiu Geng wrote: > > When guest OS happens SError interrupt(SEI), it will trap to host. > > Host firstly calls memory failure to deal with this error and decide > > whether it needs to deliver SIGBUS signal to userspace. The advantage > > that using

Re: [PATCH v11 6/6] target-arm: kvm64: Handle SError interrupt for the guest OS

On 18 August 2017 at 15:23, Dongjiu Geng wrote: > When guest OS happens SError interrupt(SEI), it will trap to host. > Host firstly calls memory failure to deal with this error and decide > whether it needs to deliver SIGBUS signal to userspace. The advantage > that using

Re: [PATCH v11 6/6] target-arm: kvm64: Handle SError interrupt for the guest OS

On 18 August 2017 at 15:23, Dongjiu Geng wrote: > When guest OS happens SError interrupt(SEI), it will trap to host. > Host firstly calls memory failure to deal with this error and decide > whether it needs to deliver SIGBUS signal to userspace. The advantage > that using signal to notify is that

[PATCH v11 6/6] target-arm: kvm64: Handle SError interrupt for the guest OS

When guest OS happens SError interrupt(SEI), it will trap to host. Host firstly calls memory failure to deal with this error and decide whether it needs to deliver SIGBUS signal to userspace. The advantage that using signal to notify is that it can make the notification method is general, non-KVM

[PATCH v11 6/6] target-arm: kvm64: Handle SError interrupt for the guest OS

When guest OS happens SError interrupt(SEI), it will trap to host. Host firstly calls memory failure to deal with this error and decide whether it needs to deliver SIGBUS signal to userspace. The advantage that using signal to notify is that it can make the notification method is general, non-KVM