Re: [PATCH v3] target/ppc: Make checkstop actually stop the system

["Nicholas Piggin" <npiggin@gmail.com>]

On Mon Jul 3, 2023 at 10:26 PM AEST, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2023, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > checkstop state does not halt the system, interrupts continue to be
> > serviced, and other CPUs run. Stop the machine with
> > qemu_system_guest_panicked.
> >
> > Change the logging not to print separately to stderr because a
> > checkstop is a guest error (or perhaps a simulated machine error)
> > rather than a QEMU error. CPU registers are dumped.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
> >
> > Since v1:
> > - Fix loop exit so it stops on the checkstop-causing instruction, rather than
> >  after it.
> >
> > Since v2:
> > - Rebase on ppc-next.
>
> Is this really based on ppc-next or on my series or another patch from 
> you? I think the patch from my series that introduces the checksrop 
> function that this patch is changing is not yet in ppc-next so this may 
> not apply there.

It is based on ppc-next unless I've done something silly. Is this
the patch you were talking about?

https://gitlab.com/danielhb/qemu/-/commit/26d089ac20080066061ed61fb58a5411e275e191

> I think you've posted an alternative to the patch moving 
> checkstop handling to a function and the sc patch which may clash with the 
> not yet merged parts in my series but i could not follow all these 
> patches. I'm not sure Daniel could so maybe you could send it as a series 
> to include all patches you want to add or state what it's based on.

Things are getting a little confusing, but I think what Daniel has
is okay. Were were talking about changing checkstop with my patch,
but no big deal to take yours first, I've reworked things.

Thanks,
Nick