From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54048)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1VbtDf-00051o-F1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:27:37 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1VbtDX-0003vj-LO
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:27:31 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:21385)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1VbtDX-0003vf-D1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 31 Oct 2013 10:27:23 -0400
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2013 16:30:04 +0200
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20131031143004.GA9948@redhat.com>
References: <1377187852-11192-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<20131024023903.GD16757@G08FNSTD100614.fnst.cn.fujitsu.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20131024023903.GD16757@G08FNSTD100614.fnst.cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] pvpanic plans?
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Hu Tao <hutao@cn.fujitsu.com>
Cc: pkrempa@redhat.com, marcel.a@redhat.com, libvir-list@redhat.com, lersek@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, armbru@redhat.com, rhod@redhat.com, kraxel@redhat.com, anthony@codemonkey.ws, Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, lcapitulino@redhat.com, afaerber@suse.de

On Thu, Oct 24, 2013 at 10:39:03AM +0800, Hu Tao wrote:
> Hi All,
> 
> I know it's been a long time since this thread. But qemu 1.7 is
> releasing, do you have any consensus on this?
> 
> Thanks.


I think the biggest issue is the new PANICKED state.
Guests already have simple ways to halt the CPU,
and actually do.  I think a new state was a mistake.
So how about the following? Does it break anything?
(Untested).

Signed-off-by: Michael S. Tsirkin <mst@redhat.com>

diff --git a/hw/misc/pvpanic.c b/hw/misc/pvpanic.c
index 226e298..2055afc 100644
--- a/hw/misc/pvpanic.c
+++ b/hw/misc/pvpanic.c
@@ -51,7 +51,6 @@ static void handle_event(int event)
 
     if (event & PVPANIC_PANICKED) {
         panicked_mon_event("pause");
-        vm_stop(RUN_STATE_GUEST_PANICKED);
         return;
     }
 }