Re: [PATCH v2 07/11] arm64: debug: split single stepping exception entry

[Ada Couprie Diaz <ada.coupriediaz@arm.com>]

On 29/05/2025 11:10, Will Deacon wrote:
> On Wed, May 28, 2025 at 04:22:05PM +0100, Mark Rutland wrote:
>> On Tue, May 20, 2025 at 05:29:14PM +0100, Will Deacon wrote:
>>> On Mon, May 12, 2025 at 06:43:22PM +0100, Ada Couprie Diaz wrote:
>>>> +	enter_from_user_mode(regs);
>>>> +	/*
>>>> +	 * After handling a breakpoint, we suspend the breakpoint
>>>> +	 * and use single-step to move to the next instruction.
>>>> +	 * If we have a suspended breakpoint there's nothing more to do:
>>>> +	 * complete the single-step.
>>>> +	 */
>>>> +	if (reinstall_suspended_bps(regs)) {
>>>> +		local_daif_restore(DAIF_PROCCTX);
>>>> +		do_softstep(esr, regs);
>>>> +	}
>>>> +	exit_to_user_mode(regs);
>>> I quite like the look of this now, but perhaps we could rename
>>> reinstall_suspended_bps() and change the return value to make things a
>>> bit more readable? For example, 'if (!stepped_suspended_breakpt(regs))'
>>> or something like that? What do you think?
>> How about:
>>
>> 	if (!try_step_suspended_breakpoints(regs))
>>
>> ... that'd match the naming in do_el0_undef() and do_el1_undef() in
>> traps.c, where we have try_${HANDLE_POTENTIAL_CASE}() for a few cases,
>> e.g.
> That's even better, thanks.
>
> Will

Happy to rename ! I think it will make the whole stepping logic easier 
to understand.

Thanks both,
Ada