On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 19:55:16 +0300 "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 06:26:52PM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 18:19:27 +0300 > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 05:04:47PM +0200, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > > > On Thu, 8 Sep 2016 18:00:28 +0300 > > > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > On Thu, Sep 08, 2016 at 11:12:16AM +0200, Greg Kurz wrote: > > If it continues > > execution, this means we're expecting the guest or the host to do something > > to fix the error condition. This requires QEMU to emit an event of some > > sort, but not necessarily to log an error message in a file. I guess this > > depends if QEMU is run by some tooling, or by a human. > > I'm not sure we need an event if tools are not expected to > do anything with it. If we limit # of times error > is printed, tools will need to reset this counter, > so we will need an event on overflow. If the device goes into a broken state, it should be discoverable from outside. I'm not sure we need an actual event signalling this if this happens due to the guest doing something wrong: That would be a task for tools monitoring _inside_ the guest. For tools monitoring the health of the machine (from the host perspective), the discovery interface would probably be enough?
