Hi Peter,
On 10/29/26 3:37 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Oct 2026 at 09:23, Eric Auger <[email protected]> wrote:
>> This allows to report a precise error message if any error occurs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Eric Auger <[email protected]>
>
>
>> @@ -371,7 +377,8 @@ static void
>> kvm_arm_get_host_cpu_features(ARMHostCPUFeatures *ahcf)
>> features |= 1ULL << ARM_FEATURE_PMU;
>> }
>>
>> - if (!kvm_arm_create_scratch_host_vcpu(fdarray, &init)) {
>> + if (!kvm_arm_create_scratch_host_vcpu(fdarray, &init, &local_err)) {
>> + error_report_err(local_err);
>> return;
>> }
> This isn't supposed to report an error here. The caller of
> this function is kvm_arm_set_cpu_features_from_host(), which
> sets cpu->host_cpu_probe_failed for any failures. That is
But is there anything wrong output an error? Added errors are related to
- Failed opening /dev/kvm
- Failed creating the scratch VM
- Failed creating the scratch VCPU
- Failed getting the preferred target
- Failed the init of the scratch vcpu
all of those are practically tagged as errors, aren't they? So does it
add any spurious msg for something that is supposed to be normal?
> later checked by arm_cpu_realizefn(), which reports either
> that you didn't use an accelerator type you should have or else
> the rather vague "Failed to retrieve host CPU features".
>
> If you want to make that more specific, I think you need to save
> that more specific error information instead of the plain
> boolean host_cpu_probe_failed, so you have it in arm_cpu_realizefn
> where you can report it up.
Maybe I can store the error handle instead?
>
>> @@ -2653,8 +2660,10 @@ void arm_cpu_kvm_set_irq(void *arm_cpu, int irq, int
>> level)
>> void arm_gic_cap_kvm_probe(GICCapability *v2, GICCapability *v3)
>> {
>> int fdarray[3];
>> + Error *local_err = NULL;
>>
>> - if (!kvm_arm_create_scratch_host_vcpu(fdarray, NULL)) {
>> + if (!kvm_arm_create_scratch_host_vcpu(fdarray, NULL, &local_err)) {
>> + error_report_err(local_err);
>> return;
>> }
> The only caller of arm_gic_cap_kvm_probe() is qmp_query_gic_capabilities(),
> which has an Error parameter. So here we should be passing the error
> up to it to report, not reporting it locally.
makes sense.
Sorry I sent the v2 nearly at the same time you sent this ;-)
Thanks
Eric
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
