From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:42383)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1TMyz5-00076d-MU
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 06:30:20 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1TMyz4-00045O-EX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 06:30:19 -0400
Received: from mail-ie0-f173.google.com ([209.85.223.173]:44581)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1TMyz4-00044d-9x
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 06:30:18 -0400
Received: by mail-ie0-f173.google.com with SMTP id 17so5814701iea.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Sat, 13 Oct 2012 03:30:17 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <507881E2.3070201@twiddle.net>
References: <cover.1350063473.git.riku.voipio@linaro.org>
	<507881E2.3070201@twiddle.net>
Date: Sat, 13 Oct 2012 11:30:17 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFEAcA8_FozJzy2w3Q7w5bbsAj7-UQZECR69ukC7P0q0GGA=xQ@mail.gmail.com>
From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] [PATCH 0/5] linux-user: refactor do_syscall()
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: Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net>
Cc: riku.voipio@linaro.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On 12 October 2012 21:47, Richard Henderson <rth@twiddle.net> wrote:
> On 10/12/2012 11:24 AM, riku.voipio@linaro.org wrote:
>> As the first step of the cleanup, I'd like to move implementation of each syscall
>> completely to their own functions. While at it, we define more standard interface between
>> do_syscall() and the functions implementing the system calls: system call functions take
>> parameter as raw abi_long, and leave the host to target errno conversion to do_syscall.
>
> My only concern is leaving the host-to-target conversion to do_syscall.
> I think the return value from do_foo should be the proper target return value.

Yes, I think I agree with this.

Also, maybe we should have all the do_foo() functions actually have the
same signature (ie take all 6 args)? Otherwise when we switch to the
dispatch-via-function-pointer-in-array-of-structs model we'll have to
change all those prototypes first.

-- PMM