On 06.02.20 09:25, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Wed, 5 Feb 2020 19:18:44 +0100
> Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> On 05.02.20 14:47, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> [..]
>>>> --- a/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
>>>> +++ b/arch/s390/kvm/interrupt.c
>>>> @@ -571,6 +571,14 @@ static int __write_machine_check(struct kvm_vcpu *vcpu,
>>>> union mci mci;
>>>> int rc;
>>>>
>>>> + if (kvm_s390_pv_is_protected(vcpu->kvm)) {
>>>> + vcpu->arch.sie_block->iictl = IICTL_CODE_MCHK;
>>>> + vcpu->arch.sie_block->mcic = mchk->mcic;
>>>> + vcpu->arch.sie_block->faddr = mchk->failing_storage_address;
>>>> + vcpu->arch.sie_block->edc = mchk->ext_damage_code;
>>>
>>> Maybe add a comment that we don't need with other machine-check related data?
>>
>> Not sure I get this point. Can you make a proposal?
>
> /*
> * All other possible payload for a machine check will
> * not be handled by the hypervisor, as it does not have
> * the needed information for protected guests.
> */
>
> Something like that?
Ah, you mean the registers and so on for the checkout?
I will add
/*
* All other possible payload for a machine check (e.g. the register
* contents in the save area) will be handled by the ultravisor, as
* the hypervisor does not not have the needed information for
* protected guests.
*/
