From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MRYN5-00059O-9O for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:20:07 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MRYMy-00053r-MJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:20:05 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=39507 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MRYMy-00053b-28 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:20:00 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f196.google.com ([209.85.222.196]:33935) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MRYMx-0005hu-NO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 17:19:59 -0400 Received: by pzk34 with SMTP id 34so242913pzk.4 for ; Thu, 16 Jul 2009 14:19:58 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A5F997A.5070508@codemonkey.ws> Date: Thu, 16 Jul 2009 16:19:54 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] introduce on_vcpu References: <1247590068-565-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1247590068-565-1-git-send-email-glommer@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Glauber Costa Cc: Jan Kiszka , aliguori@us.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Glauber Costa wrote: > on_vcpu is a qemu-kvm function that will make sure that a specific > piece of code will run on a requested cpu. We don't need that because > we're restricted to -smp 1 right now, but those days are likely to end soon. > > So for the benefit of having qemu-kvm share more code with us, I'm > introducing our own version of on_vcpu(). Right now, we either run > a function on the current cpu, or abort the execution, because it would > mean something is seriously wrong. > > As an example code, I "ported" kvm_update_guest_debug to use it, > with some slight differences from qemu-kvm. > > This is probably 0.12 material > > Signed-off-by: Glauber Costa > CC: Jan Kiszka > --- > kvm-all.c | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++------ > 1 files changed, 31 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/kvm-all.c b/kvm-all.c > index 4e913e5..1d91f2e 100644 > --- a/kvm-all.c > +++ b/kvm-all.c > @@ -39,6 +39,8 @@ > do { } while (0) > #endif > > +CPUState *current_env; > + > typedef struct KVMSlot > { > target_phys_addr_t start_addr; > @@ -145,6 +147,14 @@ static int kvm_set_user_memory_region(KVMState *s, KVMSlot *slot) > return kvm_vm_ioctl(s, KVM_SET_USER_MEMORY_REGION, &mem); > } > > +static void on_vcpu(CPUState *env, void (*func)(void *data), void *data) > +{ > + if (env == current_env) { > Can't you just use cpu_single_env? > + func(data); > + return; > + } > + assert(1); > Wouldn't assert(env == current_env) or abort() make more sense? Regards, Anthony Liguori