On Nov 2, 2016 09:57, "Razvan Cojocaru" <rcojoc...@bitdefender.com> wrote: > > On 11/02/2016 10:49 AM, Jan Beulich wrote: > > The fact that {vmx,svm}_inject_trap() combine the new exception > > with an already injected one (and blindly discard events other than > > hw exceptions), otoh, looks like indeed wants to be controllable by > > the caller: When the event comes from the outside (the hypercall), > > it would clearly seem better to simply tell the caller that no injection > > happened and the event needs to be kept pending. > > However this is not possible with the current design, since all > xc_hvm_inject_trap() really does is set the info to be used at > hvm_do_resume() time. So at the time xc_hvm_inject_trap() returns, it's > not yet possible to know if the injection will succeed or not (assuming > we discard it when it would collide with another). >
You can always introduce a new (asynchronous?) vm_event for signaling a failed interrupt injection on the vCPU. Tamas
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org https://lists.xen.org/xen-devel