From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: pbonzini@redhat.com (Paolo Bonzini) Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 14:14:30 +0100 Subject: [PATCH 2/7] KVM: arm: guest debug, define API headers In-Reply-To: <87vbm2ksui.fsf@linaro.org> References: <1416931805-23223-1-git-send-email-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <1416931805-23223-3-git-send-email-alex.bennee@linaro.org> <5474B6BC.2060309@redhat.com> <5474BAD8.7010307@redhat.com> <87vbm2ksui.fsf@linaro.org> Message-ID: <5475D236.1070305@redhat.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org On 26/11/2014 14:13, Alex Benn?e wrote: > > Paolo Bonzini writes: > >> On 25/11/2014 18:13, Peter Maydell wrote: >>> On 25 November 2014 at 17:05, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >>>>> So there is no register that says "this breakpoint has triggered" or >>>>> "this watchpoint has triggered"? >>> Nope. You take a debug exception; the syndrome register tells >>> you if it was a bp or a wp, and if it was a wp the fault address >>> register tells you the address being accessed (if it was a bp >>> you know the program counter, obviously). The debugger is expected >>> to be able to figure it out from there, if it cares. >> >> That's already good enough---do the KVM_DEBUG_EXIT_* constants match the >> syndrome register, or if not why? > > No they don't. I did consider it at the time but I was wary of pulling > too much over into the uapi headers wholesale. If your happy to do that > I'll include the change in my next version. > > I could also rationalise the exit handlers as they all pretty much do > the same thing (save for the exit/syndrome related info). Again I was > keeping things nicely separated in case any particular exception needed > excessive special case handling. > > Would you like those changes? Yes, please. Paolo