On Thu, Apr 07, 2011 at 01:32:50PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 04/07/2011 01:10 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: > >On 6 April 2011 20:34, Anthony Liguori<anthony@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > >>http://publib.boulder.ibm.com/infocenter/lnxinfo/v3r0m0/index.jsp?topic=/liaai/crashdump/liaaicrashdumpnmiipmi.htm > >> > >>If an OS is totally hosed (spinning with interrupts disabled), and NMI can > >>be used to generate a crash dump. > >> > >>It's a debug feature and modelling it exactly the way we are probably makes > >>sense for other architectures too. The real semantics are basically force > >>guest crash dump. > >Ah, right. (There isn't really an equivalent to this on ARM since > >we don't have a real NMI equivalent. So any implementation for ARM > >qemu would be board dependent since you could wire a watchdog up to > >any interrupt.) > > > >Should we try to pick a command name that says what it's supposed to > >do rather than how it happens to be implemented on x86 ? > > Yup, I was thinking the same thing after I sent the note above. If > we call it 'force-crash-dump', we can implement it as an NMI on > target-i386 and potentially as something else on a different target. > NMI does not have to generate crash dump on every guest we support. Actually even for windows guest it does not generate one without tweaking registry. For all I know there is a guest that checks mail when NMI arrives. Lets give meaningful name, like inject-nmi, for nmi injection command. -- 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
