From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MRYQ0-0006Li-FF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:23:08 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MRYPv-0006JX-Gz for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:23:07 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=48976 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MRYPv-0006JO-Ad for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:23:03 -0400 Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:39233) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MRYPu-0006JX-Rf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:23:03 -0400 Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 18:29:43 -0300 From: Glauber Costa Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] introduce on_vcpu Message-ID: <20090716212943.GA4019@poweredge.glommer> References: <1247590068-565-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> <4A5F997A.5070508@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4A5F997A.5070508@codemonkey.ws> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Anthony Liguori Cc: Jan Kiszka , aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, Jul 16, 2009 at 04:19:54PM -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > Glauber Costa wrote: >> on_vcpu is a qemu-kvm function that will make sure that a specific >> piece of code will run on a requested cpu. We don't need that because >> we're restricted to -smp 1 right now, but those days are likely to end soon. >> >> So for the benefit of having qemu-kvm share more code with us, I'm >> introducing our own version of on_vcpu(). Right now, we either run >> a function on the current cpu, or abort the execution, because it would >> mean something is seriously wrong. >> >> As an example code, I "ported" kvm_update_guest_debug to use it, >> with some slight differences from qemu-kvm. >> >> This is probably 0.12 material >> >> Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa >> CC: Jan Kiszka >> --- >> kvm-all.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ >> 1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >> >> diff --git a/kvm-all.c b/kvm-all.c >> index 4e913e5..1d91f2e 100644 >> --- a/kvm-all.c >> +++ b/kvm-all.c >> @@ -39,6 +39,8 @@ >> do { } while (0) >> #endif >> +CPUState *current_env; >> + >> typedef struct KVMSlot >> { >> target_phys_addr_t start_addr; >> @@ -145,6 +147,14 @@ static int kvm_set_user_memory_region(KVMState *s, KVMSlot *slot) >> return kvm_vm_ioctl(s, KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION, &mem); >> } >> +static void on_vcpu(CPUState *env, void (*func)(void *data), void >> *data) >> +{ >> + if (env == current_env) { >> > > Can't you just use cpu_single_env? Yes. Purpose of using curren_env was just to make it look more like qemu-kvm But I do understand that we'll have to change it anyway for this code to have any actual value, so I'm fine with using cpu_single_env. > >> + func(data); >> + return; >> + } >> + assert(1); >> > > Wouldn't assert(env == current_env) or abort() make more sense? abort() is fine. I can change it if you prefer.