Aravinda Prasad writes:
>> Yeah, it would be good not to break this.
>
> I am not familiar with CAPI. Does this affect CAPI?
When a CAPI card experiences an EEH event, any cache lines it holds are
filled with SUEs (Special UEs, interpreted by the kernel the same as
On 12/11/2015 06:35, Paul Mackerras wrote:
> Paolo,
>
> I have two fixes for HV KVM which I would like to have included in
> v4.4-rc1. The first one is a fix for a bug identified by Red Hat
> which causes occasional guest crashes. The second one fixes a bug
> which causes host stalls and
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:22:29PM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday 12 November 2015 10:13 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> > On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:02:10AM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thursday 12 November 2015 09:08 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> >>> On Thu, Nov 12,
On Friday 13 November 2015 07:20 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:22:29PM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
[...]
>>
>> I overlooked it. I think I need to take into consideration whether guest
>> issued "ibm, nmi-register". If the guest has issued "ibm, nmi-register"
>> then we
On 13/11/15 07:26, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
>
> On Friday 13 November 2015 07:20 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 11:22:29PM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
[...]
>>> So thinking whether qemu should explicitly enable the new NMI
>>> behavior.
>>
>> So, I think the reasoning above
On Friday 13 November 2015 03:07 AM, Daniel Axtens wrote:
> Aravinda Prasad writes:
>
>>> Yeah, it would be good not to break this.
>>
>> I am not familiar with CAPI. Does this affect CAPI?
>
> When a CAPI card experiences an EEH event, any cache lines it holds
On Thursday 12 November 2015 10:13 AM, David Gibson wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 10:02:10AM +0530, Aravinda Prasad wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Thursday 12 November 2015 09:08 AM, David Gibson wrote:
>>> On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 01:24:19PM +1100, Daniel Axtens wrote:
Aravinda Prasad
On Thursday 12 November 2015 10:28 AM, Daniel Axtens wrote:
>
>> So, IIUC. Once the qemu pieces are in place as well it shouldn't
>> change this behaviour: KVM will exit to qemu, qemu will log the error
>> information (new), then reinject the MC to the guest which can still
>> handle it as you