From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LzYqY-0005Et-7k
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:10:50 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LzYqT-0005CR-Lx
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:10:49 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60149 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LzYqT-0005CL-F5
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:10:45 -0400
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:6680)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>)
	id 1LzYqT-0004GP-5e
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:10:45 -0400
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1LzYqO-0003A9-R9
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:10:41 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] [RFC] cleanup cpu-exec.c: consolidate
	handle_cpu_signal
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 17:10:38 +0100
References: <1240364008-7065-1-git-send-email-froydnj@codesourcery.com>
In-Reply-To: <1240364008-7065-1-git-send-email-froydnj@codesourcery.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200904301710.38740.paul@codesourcery.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Nathan Froyd <froydnj@codesourcery.com>

> I don't understand what the "activate soft MMU for this block" is trying
> to do.  (Especially since handle_cpu_signal and company are under
>  !defined(CONFIG_SOFTMMU)...)  Even though it appears that if
> cpu_*_handle_mmu_fault ever returns a value > 0, that value is always
> one and therefore that block is superfluous, I've left that cleanup for
> a later time.  Likewise for why x86 has a different EXCEPTION_ACTION
> than everyone else.

This is most likely a remnant of the long-deceased qemu-fast, which used mmap 
tricks to avoid MMU emulation in system mode.

Paul