On 2017/9/13 18:52, Peter Maydell wrote: > This question seems to be not really related to the review > comment that it is responding to. > > (1) If the host does not support notifying us about > errors, then there is clearly nothing to do in this > code, because we will never get a notification. > > (2) If the host does support notifying us about errors, > but we choose not to expose RAS to the guest, then > there's not much to do either. We probably just want > to take whatever the default behaviour is for any > application when it touches memory that's bad. > We definitely don't want to tell the guest anything. > > (3) If the host supports notification, and we choose > to expose RAS to the guest, then we need to do > whatever we have to do to notify the guest. > > If we're in this signal handler and also > arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_RAS) is false then that > is case (2), and my point is that doing anything with > the guest 'syndrome' value looks like the wrong thing. Peter, your explanation is clear. OK, understand, thanks. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-acpi" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
