From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 4/4] KVM: x86: Add VCPU substate for NMI states Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2009 18:14:04 +0900 Message-ID: <4ADD7F5C.9080906@redhat.com> References: <20091015170535.5076.91206.stgit@mchn012c.ww002.siemens.net> <20091015170536.5076.56790.stgit@mchn012c.ww002.siemens.net> <20091019203254.GD17781@amt.cnet> <20091019203950.GC8278@redhat.com> <4ADCF771.9070709@redhat.com> <4ADD7B3C.5080607@siemens.com> <4ADD7D9C.4060605@redhat.com> <20091020090809.GJ29477@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Jan Kiszka , Marcelo Tosatti , "kvm@vger.kernel.org" To: Gleb Natapov Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:16290 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750843AbZJTJOG (ORCPT ); Tue, 20 Oct 2009 05:14:06 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20091020090809.GJ29477@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 10/20/2009 06:08 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Tue, Oct 20, 2009 at 06:06:36PM +0900, Avi Kivity wrote: > >> On 10/20/2009 05:56 PM, Jan Kiszka wrote: >> >>> So save/restore kvm_vcpu_arch::exception? As another substate or as part >>> of a generalized NMI substate? >>> >> Yes. It's not part of an nmi substate, but both can be part of an >> exception substate (but need to look at the docs vewy cawefuwy to >> make sure we don't screw up again). >> >> > What do you mean? How they can be both part of exception substate? > > Sorry, nomenclature failure. We need NMI state, Interrupt state (already provided), and pending exception state (which can be a fault or a trap). There's also some extra state associated with pending debug exceptions (maybe we can copy it into dr6). We can either put all of these into one substate, or into separate substates. I'm not sure which is best. -- I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this signature is too narrow to contain.