Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH 2/2] Xen/vMCE: bugfix to remove problematic is_vmce_ready check

["Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx>]

Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 27.04.13 at 10:38, "Liu, Jinsong" <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> From 9098666db640183f894b9aec09599dd32dddb7fa Mon Sep 17 00:00:00
>> 2001 From: Liu Jinsong <jinsong.liu@xxxxxxxxx>
>> Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 22:37:35 +0800
>> Subject: [PATCH 2/2] Xen/vMCE: bugfix to remove problematic
>> is_vmce_ready check 
>> 
>> is_vmce_ready() is problematic:
>> * For dom0, it checks if virq bind to dom0 mcelog driver. If not, it
>> results dom0 crash. However, it's problematic and overkilled since
>> mcelog as a dom0 feature could be enabled/disabled per dom0 option:
>> (XEN) MCE: This error page is ownded by DOM 0
>> (XEN) DOM0 not ready for vMCE
>> (XEN) domain_crash called from mcaction.c:133
>> (XEN) Domain 0 reported crashed by domain 32767 on cpu#31:
>> (XEN) Domain 0 crashed: rebooting machine in 5 seconds.
>> (XEN) Resetting with ACPI MEMORY or I/O RESET_REG.
>> 
>> * For dom0, if really need check, it should check whether vMCE
>> injection for dom0 ready (say, exception trap bounce check, which
>> has been done at inject_vmce()), not check dom0 mcelog ready (which
>> has been done at mce_softirq() before send global virq to dom0).
> 
> Following the argumentation above, I wonder which of the other
> "goto vmce_failed" are really appropriate, i.e. whether the patch
> shouldn't be extended (at least for the Dom0 case).
> 
> Jan

You mean other 'goto vmce_failed' are also not appropriate (I'm not quite clear 
your point)?
Would you please point out which point you think not appropriate?

Thanks,
Jinsong
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel