From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.0 required=3.0 tests=HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS, MAILING_LIST_MULTI,SIGNED_OFF_BY,SPF_PASS,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.0 Received: from mail.kernel.org (mail.kernel.org [198.145.29.99]) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30C07C04AA7 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 10:20:44 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [128.59.11.253]) by mail.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id A952C20989 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 10:20:43 +0000 (UTC) DMARC-Filter: OpenDMARC Filter v1.3.2 mail.kernel.org A952C20989 Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; dmarc=none (p=none dis=none) header.from=huawei.com Authentication-Results: mail.kernel.org; spf=pass smtp.mailfrom=kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 59CDC4A4E0; Mon, 13 May 2019 06:20:42 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id EvWCGLtmqA6A; Mon, 13 May 2019 06:20:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id 43C584A4E4; Mon, 13 May 2019 06:20:41 -0400 (EDT) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB3804A4E1 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 06:20:40 -0400 (EDT) X-Virus-Scanned: at lists.cs.columbia.edu Received: from mm01.cs.columbia.edu ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (mm01.cs.columbia.edu [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id KofUVHZfwg+C for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 06:20:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from huawei.com (szxga07-in.huawei.com [45.249.212.35]) by mm01.cs.columbia.edu (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0E1AA4A3A5 for ; Mon, 13 May 2019 06:20:39 -0400 (EDT) Received: from DGGEMS406-HUB.china.huawei.com (unknown [172.30.72.59]) by Forcepoint Email with ESMTP id B2A51795AEB80AF6238C; Mon, 13 May 2019 18:20:35 +0800 (CST) Received: from [127.0.0.1] (10.142.68.147) by DGGEMS406-HUB.china.huawei.com (10.3.19.206) with Microsoft SMTP Server id 14.3.439.0; Mon, 13 May 2019 18:20:24 +0800 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH V2] kvm: arm64: export memory error recovery capability to user space To: Peter Maydell References: <1557728917-49079-1-git-send-email-gengdongjiu@huawei.com> From: gengdongjiu Message-ID: Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 18:20:14 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.3.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US X-Originating-IP: [10.142.68.147] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected Cc: "open list:DOCUMENTATION" , kvm-devel , Jonathan Corbet , Marc Zyngier , Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , lkml - Kernel Mailing List , kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu, arm-mail-list X-BeenThere: kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: Where KVM/ARM decisions are made List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Errors-To: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu Sender: kvmarm-bounces@lists.cs.columbia.edu On 2019/5/13 17:44, Peter Maydell wrote: > On Mon, 13 May 2019 at 07:32, Dongjiu Geng wrote: >> >> When user space do memory recovery, it will check whether KVM and >> guest support the error recovery, only when both of them support, >> user space will do the error recovery. This patch exports this >> capability of KVM to user space. >> >> Cc: Peter Maydell >> Signed-off-by: Dongjiu Geng >> --- >> v1->v2: >> 1. check whether host support memory failure instead of RAS capability >> https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10730827/ >> >> v1: >> 1. User space needs to check this capability of host is suggested by Peter[1], >> this patch as RFC tag because user space patches are still under review, >> so this kernel patch is firstly sent out for review. >> >> [1]: https://patchwork.codeaurora.org/patch/652261/ >> --- > > I thought the conclusion of the thread on the v1 patch was that > userspace doesn't need to specifically ask the host kernel if > it has support for this -- if it does not, then the host kernel > will just never deliver userspace any SIGBUS with MCEERR code, > which is fine. Or am I still confused? thanks Peter's quick reply. yes, I think so, if it does not support, then the host kernel will just never deliver userspace any SIGBUS with MCEERR code. so maybe we do not need this patch. > > thanks > -- PMM > . > _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@lists.cs.columbia.edu https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/mailman/listinfo/kvmarm