[v3] replay additions

[Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 03/30] This patch adds a condition before overwriting exception_index fields.

Posted by Pavel Dovgalyuk 7 years, 9 months ago

It is needed when exception_index is already set to some meaningful value.

Signed-off-by: Pavel Dovgalyuk <pavel.dovgaluk@ispras.ru>
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
---
 accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c |    5 ++++-
 1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)

diff --git a/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c b/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
index 280200f..9cc6972 100644
--- a/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
+++ b/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
@@ -585,6 +585,7 @@ static inline bool cpu_handle_interrupt(CPUState *cpu,
         else {
             if (cc->cpu_exec_interrupt(cpu, interrupt_request)) {
                 replay_interrupt();
+                cpu->exception_index = -1;
                 *last_tb = NULL;
             }
             /* The target hook may have updated the 'cpu->interrupt_request';
@@ -606,7 +607,9 @@ static inline bool cpu_handle_interrupt(CPUState *cpu,
     if (unlikely(atomic_read(&cpu->exit_request)
         || (use_icount && cpu->icount_decr.u16.low + cpu->icount_extra == 0))) {
         atomic_set(&cpu->exit_request, 0);
-        cpu->exception_index = EXCP_INTERRUPT;
+        if (cpu->exception_index == -1) {
+            cpu->exception_index = EXCP_INTERRUPT;
+        }
         return true;
     }

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 03/30] This patch adds a condition before overwriting exception_index fields.

Posted by Paolo Bonzini 7 years, 9 months ago

On 11/01/2018 09:25, Pavel Dovgalyuk wrote:
> It is needed when exception_index is already set to some meaningful value.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Pavel Dovgalyuk <pavel.dovgaluk@ispras.ru>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> ---
>  accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c |    5 ++++-
>  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> 
> diff --git a/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c b/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
> index 280200f..9cc6972 100644
> --- a/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
> +++ b/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
> @@ -585,6 +585,7 @@ static inline bool cpu_handle_interrupt(CPUState *cpu,
>          else {
>              if (cc->cpu_exec_interrupt(cpu, interrupt_request)) {
>                  replay_interrupt();
> +                cpu->exception_index = -1;
>                  *last_tb = NULL;
>              }
>              /* The target hook may have updated the 'cpu->interrupt_request';
> @@ -606,7 +607,9 @@ static inline bool cpu_handle_interrupt(CPUState *cpu,
>      if (unlikely(atomic_read(&cpu->exit_request)
>          || (use_icount && cpu->icount_decr.u16.low + cpu->icount_extra == 0))) {
>          atomic_set(&cpu->exit_request, 0);
> -        cpu->exception_index = EXCP_INTERRUPT;
> +        if (cpu->exception_index == -1) {
> +            cpu->exception_index = EXCP_INTERRUPT;
> +        }
>          return true;
>      }
>  
> 

Where does my S-o-b come from? :)

Paolo

Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC PATCH v3 03/30] This patch adds a condition before overwriting exception_index fields.

Posted by Pavel Dovgalyuk 7 years, 9 months ago

> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonzini@redhat.com]
> On 11/01/2018 09:25, Pavel Dovgalyuk wrote:
> > It is needed when exception_index is already set to some meaningful value.
> >
> > Signed-off-by: Pavel Dovgalyuk <pavel.dovgaluk@ispras.ru>
> > Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
> > ---
> >  accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c |    5 ++++-
> >  1 file changed, 4 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> >
> > diff --git a/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c b/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
> > index 280200f..9cc6972 100644
> > --- a/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
> > +++ b/accel/tcg/cpu-exec.c
> > @@ -585,6 +585,7 @@ static inline bool cpu_handle_interrupt(CPUState *cpu,
> >          else {
> >              if (cc->cpu_exec_interrupt(cpu, interrupt_request)) {
> >                  replay_interrupt();
> > +                cpu->exception_index = -1;
> >                  *last_tb = NULL;
> >              }
> >              /* The target hook may have updated the 'cpu->interrupt_request';
> > @@ -606,7 +607,9 @@ static inline bool cpu_handle_interrupt(CPUState *cpu,
> >      if (unlikely(atomic_read(&cpu->exit_request)
> >          || (use_icount && cpu->icount_decr.u16.low + cpu->icount_extra == 0))) {
> >          atomic_set(&cpu->exit_request, 0);
> > -        cpu->exception_index = EXCP_INTERRUPT;
> > +        if (cpu->exception_index == -1) {
> > +            cpu->exception_index = EXCP_INTERRUPT;
> > +        }
> >          return true;
> >      }
> >
> >
> 
> Where does my S-o-b come from? :)

Because you proposed first version of this code, I think.


Pavel Dovgalyuk