From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K2Ukm-0004GQ-Pi for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 31 May 2008 13:20:28 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K2Ukk-0004GE-EN for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 31 May 2008 13:20:27 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=60424 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K2Ukk-0004GB-7l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 31 May 2008 13:20:26 -0400 Received: from fmmailgate02.web.de ([217.72.192.227]:55861) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K2Ukj-0003vp-PP for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 31 May 2008 13:20:26 -0400 Received: from smtp08.web.de (fmsmtp08.dlan.cinetic.de [172.20.5.216]) by fmmailgate02.web.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id E0A7FDF613DB for ; Sat, 31 May 2008 19:20:24 +0200 (CEST) Received: from [88.65.37.58] (helo=[192.168.1.198]) by smtp08.web.de with asmtp (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (WEB.DE 4.109 #226) id 1K2Uki-0001v0-00 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 31 May 2008 19:20:24 +0200 Message-ID: <484188D4.70103@web.de> Date: Sat, 31 May 2008 19:20:20 +0200 From: Jan Kiszka MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <48414AC8.7080206@web.de> <484181C4.6080002@bellard.org> In-Reply-To: <484181C4.6080002@bellard.org> Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg=pgp-sha1; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="------------enig42739ECE9651E84979A8586F" Sender: jan.kiszka@web.de Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 0/5] Debugger enhancements Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org This is an OpenPGP/MIME signed message (RFC 2440 and 3156) --------------enig42739ECE9651E84979A8586F Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Fabrice Bellard wrote: > Hi, >=20 > I cannot accept the patches for several reasons: >=20 > 1) You mix cosmetic and functional patches. Do you have specific hunks in mind? I'm a bit blind ATM, not seeing where I changed coding style or naming for cosmetic reasons. >=20 > 2) The current watchpoint code is not implemented correctly so it is no= t > safe to improve it using the same system (IMHO it should not have been > commited in its current state). A correct implementation should not > delay the DEBUG exception. It should be implemented like the "normal" > MMU exceptions. Yeah, I'm sitting over this point right now, asking myself why a watchpoint exception was modeled as CPU_INTERRUPT_DEBUG Do you have a pattern at hand how to signal this correctly? As I don't want to raise an exception on the guest CPU, I'm a bit clueless how to achieve this. Thanks, Jan --------------enig42739ECE9651E84979A8586F Content-Type: application/pgp-signature; name="signature.asc" Content-Description: OpenPGP digital signature Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="signature.asc" -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.4-svn0 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with SUSE - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFIQYjYniDOoMHTA+kRAtlgAJ9z+Nl7pf5rkX572k63QtELQN3drwCfSHVT hLB5Et7bfkCr2jVLEt8f+t4= =7XHu -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --------------enig42739ECE9651E84979A8586F--