From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1752714AbaKZNN2 (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2014 08:13:28 -0500 Received: from static.88-198-71-155.clients.your-server.de ([88.198.71.155]:56553 "EHLO socrates.bennee.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752567AbaKZNNZ (ORCPT ); Wed, 26 Nov 2014 08:13:25 -0500 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> From: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= To: Paolo Bonzini Cc: Peter Maydell , kvm-devel , arm-mail-list , "kvmarm\@lists.cs.columbia.edu" , Christoffer Dall , Marc Zyngier , Alexander Graf , "J. Kiszka" , David Hildenbrand , Bharat Bhushan , bp@suse.de, Catalin Marinas , Will Deacon , open list Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/7] KVM: arm: guest debug, define API headers In-reply-to: <5474BAD8.7010307@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2014 13:13:25 +0000 Message-ID: <87vbm2ksui.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-SA-Exim-Connect-IP: 127.0.0.1 X-SA-Exim-Mail-From: alex.bennee@linaro.org X-SA-Exim-Scanned: No (on socrates.bennee.com); SAEximRunCond expanded to false Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org 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? > > Paolo -- Alex Bennée