From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53898)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>) id 1TgXne-00048W-RY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 04:31:24 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>) id 1TgXnY-0004zU-R0
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 04:31:22 -0500
Received: from [222.73.24.84] (port=2799 helo=song.cn.fujitsu.com)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>) id 1TgXnY-0004zK-GZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 06 Dec 2012 04:31:16 -0500
From: li guang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-qriJecBQ3rBBJBu+rvBf0kDhsv51_RBx1JDteKALh4g@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1354762999-4135-1-git-send-email-lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<1354762999-4135-3-git-send-email-lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
	<CAFEAcA8v_sDfOVRLHbeHuGSaPtE1E5XMkcivGf6CSmEFjcWZ2w@mail.gmail.com>
	<1354785393.9018.3.camel@liguang.fnst.cn.fujitsu.com>
	<CAFEAcA-qriJecBQ3rBBJBu+rvBf0kDhsv51_RBx1JDteKALh4g@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 06 Dec 2012 17:27:44 +0800
Message-ID: <1354786064.9165.2.camel@liguang.fnst.cn.fujitsu.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] target-i386:slightly refactor dr7
 related function
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: ehabkost@redhat.com, jan.kiszka@siemens.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, blauwirbel@gmail.com, imammedo@redhat.com, afaerber@suse.de

=E5=9C=A8 2012-12-06=E5=9B=9B=E7=9A=84 09:23 +0000=EF=BC=8CPeter Maydell=E5=
=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
> On 6 December 2012 09:16, li guang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> > =E5=9C=A8 2012-12-06=E5=9B=9B=E7=9A=84 08:54 +0000=EF=BC=8CPeter Maydel=
l=E5=86=99=E9=81=93=EF=BC=9A
> >> On 6 December 2012 03:03, liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> >> > Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> >> > --- a/target-i386/seg_helper.c
> >> > +++ b/target-i386/seg_helper.c
> >> > @@ -465,9 +465,9 @@ static void switch_tss(CPUX86State *env, int tss=
_selector,
> >> >
> >> >  #ifndef CONFIG_USER_ONLY
> >> >      /* reset local breakpoints */
> >> > -    if (env->dr[7] & 0x55) {
> >> > -        for (i =3D 0; i < 4; i++) {
> >> > -            if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) =3D=3D 0x1) {
> >> > +    if (env->dr[7] & DR7_LOCAL_BP_MASK) {
> >> > +        for (i =3D 0; i < DR7_MAX_BP; i++) {
> >> > +            if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i)) {
> >> >                  hw_breakpoint_remove(env, i);
> >> >              }
> >> >          }
> >>
> >> This is still wrong.
> >
> > do you mean the use of 'hw_breakpoint_enabled'? or others?
> > maybe a mistake, I change it to 'hw_local_breakpoint_enabled'.
> > if it is I'll re-send a corrected patch.
>=20
> I mean that in the comments on the previous version of this
> patchseet we explained that this check is specifically checking
> for whether the breakpoint is enabled locally, and that your
> change to just returning bool broke this. And in this version
> of the patch there is still exactly the same problem.

why broke?
this function just ask if breakpoint 'i' was enable,
so we answer enabled or not? 2 simple cases, any problem?

>=20
> -- PMM

--=20
regards!
li guang