From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42231)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1Tg0DV-0004xw-FZ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:39:51 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <rth7680@gmail.com>) id 1Tg0DQ-00068X-MR
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 04 Dec 2012 16:39:49 -0500
Sender: Richard Henderson <rth7680@gmail.com>
Message-ID: <50BE6D98.4090808@twiddle.net>
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2012 15:39:36 -0600
From: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1354655711.git.blauwirbel@gmail.com>
	<ed7b40c84fd3ee1b5e64a07e3038e89eb20213d3.1354655711.git.blauwirbel@gmail.com>
	<CAFEAcA-zb8QnA3LnKJeEfRMiY6xKzh3kbRaWvc33h8L2ho0JsQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA-zb8QnA3LnKJeEfRMiY6xKzh3kbRaWvc33h8L2ho0JsQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/4] exec: refactor cpu_restore_state
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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>, Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>, Michael Walle <michael@walle.cc>, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org, Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>, "Edgar E. Iglesias" <edgar.iglesias@gmail.com>, Guan Xuetao <gxt@mprc.pku.edu.cn>, Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>

On 2012-12-04 15:25, Peter Maydell wrote:
> So this is just a refactoring, but it prompts me to ask -- how does
> this work if the PC that caused us to take this TLB fill is legitimately
> zero? We seem to be overloading retaddr==0 as a "not a real cpu fault"
> indicator...

Since this is a host code address, usually inside code_gen_buffer,
not a target code address, this isn't ever going to happen.


r~