From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:41927) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bualg-0001zO-Sy for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:49:33 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bualb-0006yj-S2 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:49:31 -0400 Received: from mx3-phx2.redhat.com ([209.132.183.24]:49697) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bualb-0006xx-JZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:49:27 -0400 Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2016 03:49:20 -0400 (EDT) From: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <595255889.2791024.1476344960142.JavaMail.zimbra@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <20161012183815.GA24542@localhost> References: <1476100224-19760-1-git-send-email-imbrenda@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <1476100224-19760-3-git-send-email-imbrenda@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161012131525.GA9564@localhost> <20161012183815.GA24542@localhost> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 2/2] gdbstub: Fix vCont behaviour List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: David Hildenbrand Cc: Claudio Imbrenda , qemu-devel@nongnu.org ----- Original Message ----- > From: "David Hildenbrand" > To: "Claudio Imbrenda" > Cc: "David Hildenbrand" , "Paolo Bonzini" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org > Sent: Wednesday, October 12, 2016 8:38:15 PM > Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 2/2] gdbstub: Fix vCont behaviour > > On Wed, Oct 12, 2016 at 03:55:18PM +0200, Claudio Imbrenda wrote: > > On 12/10/16 15:15, David Hildenbrand wrote: > > >>> + for (cx = 0; ccpus && ccpus[cx]; cx++) { > > >>> + cpu_single_step(cpu, 0); > > > > > > This looks suspicious > > > > why? we set all cpus to single step, since that is the default, and then > > we clear the single-step property from all CPUs that should be restarted > > in normal mode, then we restart all CPUs. Those in single-step will > > indeed only perform one single step, the others will run freely (at > > least until the first single-step CPU stops again). > > actually I was more concerned about calling it on "cpu" in a loop. And we all missed that it should have been ccpus[cx], not cpu. :) Paolo