From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MXLP9-0005Dk-Rl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:42:11 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MXLP9-0005DG-Bk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:42:11 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56055 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MXLP9-0005D0-7Q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:42:11 -0400 Received: from ey-out-1920.google.com ([74.125.78.144]:61885) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MXLP8-0003OJ-Q6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 16:42:10 -0400 Received: by ey-out-1920.google.com with SMTP id 5so583241eyb.4 for ; Sat, 01 Aug 2009 13:42:09 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1240364008-7065-1-git-send-email-froydnj@codesourcery.com> References: <1240364008-7065-1-git-send-email-froydnj@codesourcery.com> Date: Sat, 1 Aug 2009 22:42:09 +0200 Message-ID: <5b31733c0908011342q12cd08acwe0fe966a935dfc63@mail.gmail.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] [RFC] cleanup cpu-exec.c: consolidate handle_cpu_signal From: Filip Navara Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Nathan Froyd Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Apr 22, 2009 at 3:33 AM, Nathan Froyd wro= te: > handle_cpu_signal is very nearly copy-paste code for each target, with a > few minor variations. =A0This patch sets up appropriate defaults for a > generic handle_cpu_signal and provides overrides for particular targets > that did things differently. =A0Fixing things like the persistent (XXX: > use sigsetjmp) should now become somewhat easier. > > I don't understand what the "activate soft MMU for this block" is trying > to do. =A0(Especially since handle_cpu_signal and company are under > =A0!defined(CONFIG_SOFTMMU)...) =A0Even 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. =A0Likewise for why x86 has a different EXCEPTION_ACTION > than everyone else. > > Signed-off-by: Nathan Froyd Any plans on reviving this patch? It's definitely a cleanup I am interested= in. Best regards, Filip Navara