|
From: | Gupta, Pankaj |
Subject: | Re: [PATCH v3 2/3] i386: Explicitly ignore unsupported BUS_MCEERR_AO MCE on AMD guest |
Date: | Fri, 8 Sep 2023 11:35:12 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; Win64; x64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0 |
diff --git a/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c b/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c index 5fce74aac5..4d42d3ed4c 100644 --- a/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c +++ b/target/i386/kvm/kvm.c@@ -604,6 +604,10 @@ static void kvm_mce_inject(X86CPU *cpu, hwaddr paddr, int code)mcg_status |= MCG_STATUS_RIPV; } } else { + if (code == BUS_MCEERR_AO) {+ /* XXX we don't support BUS_MCEERR_AO injection on AMD yet */+ return; + } mcg_status |= MCG_STATUS_EIPV | MCG_STATUS_RIPV; }@@ -655,7 +659,9 @@ void kvm_arch_on_sigbus_vcpu(CPUState *c, int code, void *addr)if (ram_addr != RAM_ADDR_INVALID &&kvm_physical_memory_addr_from_host(c->kvm_state, addr, &paddr)) {kvm_hwpoison_page_add(ram_addr); - kvm_mce_inject(cpu, paddr, code); + if (!IS_AMD_CPU(env) || code != BUS_MCEERR_AO) {Isn't the 'optional' case we already handle inside kvm_mce_inject()? So this check seems repetitive to me.You are right, it is repetitive, but can be considered as a reminder of the situation and an explanation of the "ignored on AMD guest" message later in this function.Of course it can be removed if you think that the code is easier to read without it. When the AMD BUS_MCEERR_AO support is integrated, both locations would need to be cleared, but this sounds reasonable to me.
Yes, I think it helps to read the code better and less conditional. Thanks, Pankaj
John, it's up to you. William.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |