On Mon, 13 Aug 2012 23:15:07 -0400, Christoffer Dall <c.dall@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Sun, Aug 5, 2012 at 8:41 PM, Rusty Russell <rusty@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > + /* See ARM ARM B1.14.1: "Hyp traps on instructions > > + * that fail their condition code check" */ > > not sure if checkpatch.pl complains, but this is not kernel style > commenting, strictly speaking, is it? Yes, I couldn't get it under a line, so it needs wings. I think it's stupid, but it is the Kernel Way. > > + if (!kvm_condition_valid(vcpu)) > > + return 0; > > eh, this just exits to qemu without any further notice or explanation > and the guest will re-execute the instruction and the hardware will > trap again. Should we not fast forward past the instruction and adjust > the ITSTATE accordingly? > > and then this would be return 1 now. > > if you confirm you agree, I will simply make the adjustment and merge. Yes, you're right. This is the problem with untestable code :( Thanks, Rusty. _______________________________________________ kvmarm mailing list kvmarm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.cs.columbia.edu/cucslists/listinfo/kvmarm
