On 14/8/26 14:44, Peter Xu wrote:
On Fri, Aug 14, 2026 at 07:56:42AM +0200, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
Hi Peter, Michael,
On 12/8/26 22:16, Michael Roth wrote:
From: Peter Xu <[email protected]>
So that there will be a verbal string returned when kvm not enabled, or
kvm not compiled.
Signed-off-by: Peter Xu <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Xiaoyao Li <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Fabiano Rosas <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Michael Roth <[email protected]>
Signed-off-by: Michael Roth <[email protected]>
---
accel/kvm/kvm-all.c | 5 +++++
accel/stubs/kvm-stub.c | 1 +
2 files changed, 6 insertions(+)
So maybe what we want is:
-- >8 --
diff --git a/system/physmem.c b/system/physmem.c
index b97016b1303..66ff74541aa 100644
--- a/system/physmem.c
+++ b/system/physmem.c
@@ -2824,6 +2824,8 @@ int ram_block_rebind(Error **errp)
{
RAMBlock *block;
+ assert(kvm_enabled()); /* Only supported by KVM so far */
+
qemu_mutex_lock_ramlist();
RAMBLOCK_FOREACH(block) {
---
Or less aggressive:
-- >8 --
diff --git a/system/physmem.c b/system/physmem.c
index b97016b1303..2988d1dd6c9 100644
--- a/system/physmem.c
+++ b/system/physmem.c
@@ -2824,6 +2824,11 @@ int ram_block_rebind(Error **errp)
{
RAMBlock *block;
+ if (!kvm_enabled()) {
+ error_setg(errp, "guest-memfd requires KVM accelerator");
+ return -1;
+ }
+
qemu_mutex_lock_ramlist();
RAMBLOCK_FOREACH(block) {
---
WDYT?
Fine by me.
IMHO it's normally more of an issue the other way round, if we used an
assert() where we should use error_setg() (hence, user triggerable
assert()s). Here we expect it to never happen, so either way should not
happen..
If so, we could also assert() in ram_block_rebind(), as it's only used in
kvm_reset_vmfd() only, so I don't see how it can be reached if KVM is not
enabled first..
I'd rather avoid kvm_enabled() checks in kvm-specific API (accel/kvm/).
If ram_block_rebind() is KVM-specific, why expose it as RAMBlock API?
