On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 01:53:15PM +0100, Jan Kiszka wrote:
> On 2011-02-21 13:25, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 21, 2011 at 02:24:19PM +0200, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 02/21/2011 12:16 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>> Signed-off-by: Gleb Natapov<gleb@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> diff --git a/qemu-kvm.c b/qemu-kvm.c
> >>> index 49cd683..2f3f683 100644
> >>> --- a/qemu-kvm.c
> >>> +++ b/qemu-kvm.c
> >>> @@ -644,8 +644,7 @@ int kvm_run(CPUState *env)
> >>> break;
> >>> #endif
> >>> case KVM_EXIT_INTERNAL_ERROR:
> >>> - kvm_handle_internal_error(env, run);
> >>> - r = 1;
> >>> + r = kvm_handle_internal_error(env, run);
> >>> break;
> >>> default:
> >>> if (kvm_arch_run(env)) {
> >>> @@ -1233,6 +1232,7 @@ int kvm_cpu_exec(CPUState *env)
> >>> r = kvm_run(env);
> >>> if (r< 0) {
> >>> printf("kvm_run returned %d\n", r);
> >>> + kvm_show_regs(env);
> >>> vm_stop(0);
> >>> }
> >>
> >> 'info registers'.
> >>
> > That is if you can reproduce. For useful bug reports it is better to
> > have them printed for user.
>
> FWIW, this patch just aligns qemu-kvm to what upstream already does and
> what qemu-kvm will soon or later do as well when it starts using the
> upstream loop. I'm neutral /wrt applying this patch before the cleanup
> or achieving the same by consolidating the code.
>
Indeed. When I got no register dump on error I stared at the wrong code
for 20 minutes trying to understand how it could happen. Having two kvm
implementations in the same tree is such fun!
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
