From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Marcelo Tosatti <mtosatti@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] 	Re: [PATCH 07/11] kvm, x86: unify sigbus
 handling, prep
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 22:46:50 -0300
Message-ID: <20101015014650.GB1043@amt.cnet>
References: <4CB6C427.10202@np.css.fujitsu.com>
 <20101015003656.GA32272@amt.cnet>
 <4CB7AE75.3090404@jp.fujitsu.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Cc: Jin Dongming <jin.dongming@np.css.fujitsu.com>,
	KVM list <kvm@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dean Nelson <dnelson@redhat.com>,
	"qemu-devel@nongnu.org" <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>,
	Avi Kivity <avi@redhat.com>, Huang Ying <ying.huang@intel.com>
To: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com>
Return-path: <kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:62828 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com"
	rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP
	id S1754288Ab0JOLiW (ORCPT <rfc822;kvm@vger.kernel.org>);
	Fri, 15 Oct 2010 07:38:22 -0400
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <4CB7AE75.3090404@jp.fujitsu.com>
Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <kvm.vger.kernel.org>

On Fri, Oct 15, 2010 at 10:29:25AM +0900, Hidetoshi Seto wrote:
> (2010/10/15 9:36), Marcelo Tosatti wrote:
> > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 05:49:43PM +0900, Jin Dongming wrote:
> >> There are 2 similar functions to handle SIGBUS:
> >>   sigbus_handler(int n, struct qemu_signalfd_siginfo *siginfo,
> >>                  void *ctx)
> >>   kvm_on_sigbus(CPUState *env, siginfo_t *siginfo)
> >>
> >> The former is used when main thread receives SIGBUS via signalfd,
> >> while latter is used when vcpu thread receives SIGBUS.
> >> These 2 take different siginfo, but in both case required parameters
> >> are common, the code and the addr in the info.
> >>
> >> Restruct functions to take the code and the addr explicitly.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Hidetoshi Seto <seto.hidetoshi@jp.fujitsu.com>
> >> Tested-by: Jin Dongming <jin.dongming@np.css.fujitsu.com>
> >> ---
> >>  qemu-kvm.c |   41 ++++++++++++++++++++---------------------
> >>  1 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 21 deletions(-)
> > 
> > Don't see the benefit, separate functions are cleaner.
> 
> I think this is good for maintainability.
> If you want to fix a bug in this area, you might have to change
> 2 separate functions in completely same way.
> See 6c85786 and a05684e for examples.
> 
> Thanks,
> H.Seto

OK, makes sense. Do you mind to rebase your patchset after MCE support is merged in qemu
upstream?