From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46005)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>) id 1XRNKw-0001Qd-Ui
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:28:12 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>) id 1XRNKp-0001Jo-5a
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:28:06 -0400
Received: from mail-lb0-f172.google.com ([209.85.217.172]:50494)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>) id 1XRNKo-0001JI-RQ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 11:27:59 -0400
Received: by mail-lb0-f172.google.com with SMTP id w7so4192648lbi.31
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Tue, 09 Sep 2014 08:27:50 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA8Uz2Jd5Yt5GT+=DhRMNSLCqzDm7Rz+sn8WHhgm=_mfaw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1409919897-360-1-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
	<1409919897-360-3-git-send-email-ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
	<CAFEAcA8Uz2Jd5Yt5GT+=DhRMNSLCqzDm7Rz+sn8WHhgm=_mfaw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Tue, 9 Sep 2014 17:27:50 +0200
Message-ID: <CAKv+Gu_2=mbUX2mRO3urKXDidX5_yoVQGZSU3Barh5ghdWYY_A@mail.gmail.com>
From: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 2/6] target-arm: do not set do_interrupt
 handler for AArch64 user mode
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: Rob Herring <rob.herring@linaro.org>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>, Christoffer Dall <christoffer.dall@linaro.org>

On 9 September 2014 17:25, Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> wrote:
> On 5 September 2014 13:24, Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org> wrote:
>> From: Rob Herring <rob.herring@linaro.org>
>>
>> User mode emulation should never get interrupts and thus should not
>> use the system emulation exception handler function. Remove the reference,
>> and '#ifndef USER_MODE_ONLY' the function itself as well, so that we can add
>> system mode only functionality to it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <rob.herring@linaro.org>
>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <ard.biesheuvel@linaro.org>
>> ---
>>  target-arm/cpu64.c      | 2 ++
>>  target-arm/helper-a64.c | 3 +++
>>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/target-arm/cpu64.c b/target-arm/cpu64.c
>> index aa42803959be..9f88b9f4eea0 100644
>> --- a/target-arm/cpu64.c
>> +++ b/target-arm/cpu64.c
>> @@ -196,7 +196,9 @@ static void aarch64_cpu_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void *data)
>>  {
>>      CPUClass *cc = CPU_CLASS(oc);
>>
>> +#if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
>>      cc->do_interrupt = aarch64_cpu_do_interrupt;
>> +#endif
>>      cc->set_pc = aarch64_cpu_set_pc;
>>      cc->gdb_read_register = aarch64_cpu_gdb_read_register;
>>      cc->gdb_write_register = aarch64_cpu_gdb_write_register;
>> diff --git a/target-arm/helper-a64.c b/target-arm/helper-a64.c
>> index 2e9ef64786ae..89b913ee9396 100644
>> --- a/target-arm/helper-a64.c
>> +++ b/target-arm/helper-a64.c
>> @@ -438,6 +438,8 @@ uint64_t HELPER(crc32c_64)(uint64_t acc, uint64_t val, uint32_t bytes)
>>      return crc32c(acc, buf, bytes) ^ 0xffffffff;
>>  }
>>
>> +#if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
>> +
>>  /* Handle a CPU exception.  */
>>  void aarch64_cpu_do_interrupt(CPUState *cs)
>>  {
>> @@ -512,3 +514,4 @@ void aarch64_cpu_do_interrupt(CPUState *cs)
>>      env->pc = addr;
>>      cs->interrupt_request |= CPU_INTERRUPT_EXITTB;
>>  }
>> +#endif
>
> For consistency we need to not set do_interrupt in
> the arm_cpu_class_init() function too. (Then we'll
> have it be NULL in all cases, since v7m already
> guards its assignment with an ifdef.)
>

Would you prefer a single patch that does both?
Or a followup patch?