Jerone Young wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 09:54 -0500, Hollis Blanchard wrote:
On Mon, 2008-06-09 at 09:23 -0500, Jerone Young wrote:
diff --git a/qemu/gdbstub.c b/qemu/gdbstub.c
--- a/qemu/gdbstub.c
+++ b/qemu/gdbstub.c
@@ -983,6 +983,7 @@ static int gdb_handle_packet(GDBState *s
kvm_load_registers(env);
#elif defined (TARGET_PPC)
env->nip = addr;
+ kvm_load_registers(env);
#elif defined (TARGET_SPARC)
env->pc = addr;
env->npc = addr + 4;
@@ -1021,6 +1022,7 @@ static int gdb_handle_packet(GDBState *s
kvm_load_registers(env);
#elif defined (TARGET_PPC)
env->nip = addr;
+ kvm_load_registers(env);
#elif defined (TARGET_SPARC)
env->pc = addr;
env->npc = addr + 4;
These should be protected by a kvm_enabled() test, just like you see for
x86 four lines earlier.A
Actually the line above is x86 and it is not using kvm_enabled() before
calling kvm_load_registers().
Yes, kvm_load_registers() has a built-in kvm_enabled() test.
--
I have a truly marvellous patch that fixes the bug which this
signature is too narrow to contain.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
