Re: [PATCH v3] target/ppc: Make checkstop actually stop the system

[Nicholas Piggin]

On Tue Jul 4, 2023 at 1:06 AM AEST, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> On Mon, 3 Jul 2023, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> > On Mon Jul 3, 2023 at 10:26 PM AEST, BALATON Zoltan wrote:
> >> On Mon, 3 Jul 2023, Nicholas Piggin wrote:
> >>> checkstop state does not halt the system, interrupts continue to be
> >>> serviced, and other CPUs run. Stop the machine with
> >>> qemu_system_guest_panicked.
> >>>
> >>> Change the logging not to print separately to stderr because a
> >>> checkstop is a guest error (or perhaps a simulated machine error)
> >>> rather than a QEMU error. CPU registers are dumped.
> >>>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>
> >>>
> >>> Since v1:
> >>> - Fix loop exit so it stops on the checkstop-causing instruction, rather 
> >>> than
> >>>  after it.
> >>>
> >>> Since v2:
> >>> - Rebase on ppc-next.
> >>
> >> Is this really based on ppc-next or on my series or another patch from
> >> you? I think the patch from my series that introduces the checksrop
> >> function that this patch is changing is not yet in ppc-next so this may
> >> not apply there.
> >
> > It is based on ppc-next unless I've done something silly. Is this
> > the patch you were talking about?
> >
> > https://gitlab.com/danielhb/qemu/-/commit/26d089ac20080066061ed61fb58a5411e275e191
> >
> >> I think you've posted an alternative to the patch moving
> >> checkstop handling to a function and the sc patch which may clash with the
> >> not yet merged parts in my series but i could not follow all these
> >> patches. I'm not sure Daniel could so maybe you could send it as a series
> >> to include all patches you want to add or state what it's based on.
> >
> > Things are getting a little confusing, but I think what Daniel has
> > is okay. Were were talking about changing checkstop with my patch,
> > but no big deal to take yours first, I've reworked things.
>
> Sorry my bad. Yes it's getting confusing to me and missed that Daniel 
> already merged that patch on ppc-next, I thought it was one of the patches 
> not yet merged. So this can go on top then.
>
> There was another change for fixing sc that may clash that I'm not sure 
> if I need to do anything about.

The sc patches still had the problem of changing the syscall dump to
the instruction after syscall IIRC. So that would need to be fixed.
But that does make me a bit less happy about them too... Anyway
resend with fix and rebase if you want  them.

Thanks,
Nick