From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Avi Kivity Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/3] KVM: x86 emulator: get rid of "restart" in emulation context. Date: Tue, 24 Aug 2010 16:41:10 +0300 Message-ID: <4C73CBF6.1050809@redhat.com> References: <1282649455-9463-1-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com> <1282649455-9463-3-git-send-email-gleb@redhat.com> <4C73C582.6050704@redhat.com> <20100824133754.GC10499@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: mtosatti@redhat.com, kvm@vger.kernel.org To: Gleb Natapov Return-path: Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:44344 "EHLO mx1.redhat.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753283Ab0HXNlL (ORCPT ); Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:41:11 -0400 Received: from int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.12]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7ODfBjn024637 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:41:11 -0400 Received: from cleopatra.tlv.redhat.com (cleopatra.tlv.redhat.com [10.35.255.11]) by int-mx02.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o7ODfAO1022075 for ; Tue, 24 Aug 2010 09:41:11 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20100824133754.GC10499@redhat.com> Sender: kvm-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On 08/24/2010 04:37 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 04:13:38PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: >> On 08/24/2010 02:30 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: >>> x86_emulate_insn() will return 1 if instruction can be restarted >>> without re-entering a guest. >>> >> So now we have an undocumented -1/0/1 return code? >> >> Better to have an enum for this. >> > We already have two. First is X86EMUL_ (not enum but close) for > more or less internal emulator use. Second is EMULATE_* for users of > emulate_instruction() now you want one more enum for communication > between emulate_instruction() and x86_emulate_insn(). Lost in enums. > emulate_instruction() and x86_emulate_insn() are tightly coupled right > now should we define formal interface between them? May be comment will > be enough? Can we reuse one or the other? Perhaps with extensions? -- error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function