On Thu, 6 Feb 2020 10:01:02 +0100
Christian Borntraeger <borntraeger@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> 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.
> */
>
Sounds good!
