On 22 November 2018 at 10:28, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 22 November 2018 at 03:05, gengdongjiu <gengdongjiu@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> > >>> Shouldn't there be something in here to say "only report this error to the guest if we are actually reporting RAS errors to the guest" ? >> >> Yes, We can say something that such as "report this error to the guest", because this error is indeed triggered by guest, which is guest error. > > I'm afraid I don't really understand what you mean. Could you > try rephrasing it? > > My understanding was: > * we get this signal if there is a RAS error in the host memory > * if we are exposing RAS errors to the guest (ie we have > told it that in the ACPI table we passed it at startup) > then we should pass on this error to the guest > > but that these are two different conditions. > > If the host hardware detects a RAS error in memory used > by the guest but the guest is not being told about RAS > errors, then we cannot report the error: we have no mechanism > to do so, and the guest is not expecting it. If you look at the x86 version of this function you can see that it tests (env->mcg_cap & MCG_SER_P), which I think is the equivalent x86 "is the guest CPU/config one we can report these errors to" test. thanks -- PMM
