Daniel P. Berrangé <[email protected]> writes: > On Fri, Jul 10, 2026 at 05:02:53PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
[...] >> So I guess my question is, is it OK to mash these two categories of >> "we can't keep running the VM" together, or should we define a new >> one for the "unrecoverable guest error" case, or do we already have >> some better thing to do that I missed? > > IMHO we should NOT be abusing "panicked" for cases which are > not guest OS panics. Point. > Adding new QMP events is cheap and we should do so. Changing the event sent on a certain situation is technically a compatibility break. Would it matter here? > We need > at least a "MCE" event. > > IMHO the "unknown / unexpected" VM exits likely deserve a > different event again. [...]
