On 21.11.19 13:19, Janosch Frank wrote:
> On 11/21/19 1:14 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> On 20.11.19 12:43, Janosch Frank wrote:
>>> If a vcpu is not properly reset it might be better to just end the VM.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Janosch Frank <frankja@linux.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>> target/s390x/kvm.c | 2 ++
>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/target/s390x/kvm.c b/target/s390x/kvm.c
>>> index 190400df55..0210b54157 100644
>>> --- a/target/s390x/kvm.c
>>> +++ b/target/s390x/kvm.c
>>> @@ -418,11 +418,13 @@ static void kvm_s390_reset_vcpu(S390CPU *cpu, unsigned long type)
>>> if (kvm_vcpu_ioctl(cs, KVM_S390_VCPU_RESET, type)) {
>>> error_report("CPU reset type %ld failed on CPU %i",
>>> type, cs->cpu_index);
>>> + exit(1);
>>> }
>>> return;
>>> }
>>> if (kvm_vcpu_ioctl(cs, KVM_S390_INITIAL_RESET, NULL)) {
>>> error_report("Initial CPU reset failed on CPU %i", cs->cpu_index);
>>> + exit(1);
>>> }
>>> }
>>>
>>>
>>
>> According to the comment in include/qapi/error.h
>>
>> "Please don't error_setg(&error_fatal, ...), use error_report() and
>> exit(), because that's more obvious."
>>
>> This is the right thing to do.
>>
>> ... and it's a fairly pathological thing to happen either way.
>>
>> Reviewed-by: David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>
>>
>
> Do we want to have that separate or should I squash it into the reset
> changes?
>
>
I' keep it separated.
--
Thanks,
David / dhildenb