Hi gengdongjiu, On 12/04/18 07:09, gengdongjiu wrote: > On 2018/4/10 22:15, James Morse wrote: >> On 09/04/18 22:36, Dongjiu Geng wrote: >>> 1. Detect whether KVM can set set guest SError syndrome >>> 2. Support to Set VSESR_EL2 and inject SError by user space. >>> 3. Support live migration to keep SError pending state and VSESR_EL2 value. >>> 4. ACPI 6.1 adds support for NOTIFY_SEI as a GHES notification mechanism, so support this >>> notification in software, KVM or kernel ARCH code call handle_guest_sei() to let ACP driver >>> to handle this notification. >> >> Please don't post code during the merge-window, will this apply to v4.17-rc1? We >> can't know until its tagged. Posting code during the merge-window isn't helpful as the kernel is a moving target, its better to wait for an 'rc' to base it on. > I do not know when it is merge-window. About the apply version, it does not have limited. 'git fetch' Linus' tree and look at the tags. 'v4.16' lost its '-rc' suffixes, and there isn't a 'v4.17-rc1' yet, so we are still in the merge window. Linus sends a message to LKML. eg: https://lkml.org/lkml/2018/4/1/175 net-next closes shortly before the merge window, and re-opens afterwards. There is a handy web page: http://vger.kernel.org/~davem/net-next.html >> This series is doing two separate things, please split it into two series. > OK, thanks! > >> >> But on the ACPI front: I don't see how any OS can support your NOTIFY_SEI when >> firmware is ignoring the normal world's PSTATE.A. >> >> The latest lobe of that discussion was on the list here: >> https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg1611496.html > I have replied the mail. > I still have some questions that need to clarify with you. > After clarification, we will follow that. > The question is in the reply of this mail "https://www.mail-archive.com/linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx/msg1611496.html"; Lets keep that discussion on v9 then. >> As it is, we would need to spot SError being delivered while SError is masked, >> spray nasty messages about firmware being horrifically buggy, then panic(). For >> a corrected error, this looks bad, but its preferable to letting firmware >> silently overwrite the exception registers, causing linux to spin through the >> vectors 'eret' with all exceptions masked. >> I still think its best to wait for firmware that does the right thing. > Let us discuss that in another mail. > In a summary, I think firmware follow below rule can be OK, right? > 1. The exception came from the EL that SError should be routed to(according to hcr_EL2.{AMO, TGE}),but PSTATE.A was set, EL3 firmware can't deliver SError; > 2. The exception came from the EL that SError should not be routed to(according to hcr_EL2.{AMO, TGE}),even though the PSTATE.A was set,EL3 firmware still deliver SError Problem here, more on v9. Thanks, James -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-doc" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
