On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 6:09 AM Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 9:55 PM Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > wrote: > > > > On Fri, 15 Jan 2021 at 13:33, Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 15, 2021 at 7:50 PM Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Ping! This patch was trying to fix a Coverity issue (CID 1435959, > > > > 1435960, 1435961) -- is anybody planning to review it? > > > > > > > > (I'm not entirely sure 'guest error' is the right warning category, > > > > but I don't know the specifics of this device.) > > > > > > > > > > I think we should just use 'printf' instead of log a "guest error" > > > because the guest does nothing wrong. > > > > printf is definitely the wrong thing... you need to either report > > the error back to the guest if the interface the guest is using > > has a facility for reporting read/write failures, or log or report > > it to the user using one of our APIs for that. > > It seems the hardware does not have a mechanism to report to the > software when hardware cannot fulfill the task requested by software. > > I checked all existence of block_pwrite() callers. It looks like this > is not handled consistently. Some indeed call printf(), some call > error_setg_errno(), some call fprintf(stderr), some call qemu_log() > ...
Logging a guest error seems like the best bet, I'm not really sure what else we would do. Alistair > > Regards, > Bin
