On Wednesday 21 May 2008 21:47:40 Anthony Liguori wrote: > Hollis Blanchard wrote: > > This code shouldn't be hit anyways, but when it is, it's useful to have a > > little more information about the failure. > > > > Signed-off-by: Hollis Blanchard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > > diff --git a/arch/powerpc/kvm/44x_tlb.c b/arch/powerpc/kvm/44x_tlb.c > > --- a/arch/powerpc/kvm/44x_tlb.c > > +++ b/arch/powerpc/kvm/44x_tlb.c > > @@ -145,7 +145,7 @@ void kvmppc_mmu_map(struct kvm_vcpu *vcp > > down_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem); > > new_page = gfn_to_page(vcpu->kvm, gfn); > > if (is_error_page(new_page)) { > > - printk(KERN_ERR "Couldn't get guest page!\n"); > > + printk(KERN_ERR "Couldn't get guest page for gfn %lx!\n", gfn); > > kvm_release_page_clean(new_page); > > up_read(¤t->mm->mmap_sem); > > return; > > > > FWIW, you should probably rate limit this sort of thing if this is what > would get triggered if the guest tried to program the tlb with an > invalid gfn.
That was my initial thought as well, but in general, kvmppc_mmu_map() is only called if a TLB entry is "safe" -- meaning kvm_is_visible_gfn(kvm, gfn) was true. So in the absence of bugs elsewhere, this should never happen... but we know how that goes. ;) Anyways, that's why I'm not worried about rate limiting here. -- Hollis Blanchard IBM Linux Technology Center -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html