On Mon, 23 Jun 2025 at 13:19, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Allow distinguishing HV_ILLEGAL_GUEST_STATE in trace events.
>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@linaro.org>
> Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org>
> ---
> target/arm/hvf/hvf.c | 10 +++++++++-
> target/arm/hvf/trace-events | 1 +
> 2 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c b/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
> index ef76dcd28de..cc5bbc155d2 100644
> --- a/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
> +++ b/target/arm/hvf/hvf.c
> @@ -1916,7 +1916,15 @@ int hvf_vcpu_exec(CPUState *cpu)
> bql_unlock();
> r = hv_vcpu_run(cpu->accel->fd);
> bql_lock();
> - assert_hvf_ok(r);
> + switch (r) {
> + case HV_SUCCESS:
> + break;
> + case HV_ILLEGAL_GUEST_STATE:
> + trace_hvf_illegal_guest_state();
> + /* fall through */
> + default:
> + g_assert_not_reached();
This seems kind of odd.
If it can happen, we shouldn't g_assert_not_reached().
If it can't happen, we shouldn't trace it.
But the hvf code already has a lot of "assert success
rather than handling possible-but-fatal errors more
gracefully", so I guess it's OK.
-- PMM
