From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] VMX: Properly return error to userspace on vmentry failure Date: Tue, 25 May 2010 15:10:39 +0300 Message-ID: <4BFBBE3F.50609@redhat.com> References: <1274652064-8267-1-git-send-email-m.gamal005@gmail.com> <4BFBB877.5030100@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mtosatti@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Mohammed Gamal Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:42869 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755077Ab0EYMKm (ORCPT ); Tue, 25 May 2010 08:10:42 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 05/25/2010 03:01 PM, Mohammed Gamal wrote: >> >> How does the user distinguish between KVM_EXIT_FAIL_ENTRY due to an exit >> reason with bit 31 set and vmlauch/vmresume failure (vmx->fail set)? We >> need separate exit codes (with documentation in api.txt). >> > In both cases the vm fails entry, and I don't think the hardware entry > failure reason codes would overlap between the vmx->fail case and exit > reasons with bit 31 set, so why should there be such distinction > between both cases? > Only 5 more error codes (28->33) and we have overlap. If you return the new codes with bit 31 still set then we can use the existing KVM_EXIT_FAIL_ENTRY. -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function