Hi Ricardo,
> > > > -static void guest_code(uint8_t bpn, uint8_t wpn)
> > > > +static void guest_code(uint8_t bpn, uint8_t wpn, uint8_t ctx_bpn)
> > > > {
> > > > + uint64_t ctx = 0x1; /* a random context number */
> > > > +
> > > > GUEST_SYNC(0);
> > > >
> > > > /* Software-breakpoint */
> > > > @@ -281,6 +310,19 @@ static void guest_code(uint8_t bpn, uint8_t wpn)
> > > > : : : "x0");
> > > > GUEST_ASSERT_EQ(ss_addr[0], 0);
> > > >
> > >
> > > I've just noticed that I should add GUEST_SYNC(10) here, use
> > > GUEST_SYNC(11) for the following test case, and update the
> > > stage limit value in the loop in userspace code.
> > >
> > > Or I might consider removing the stage management code itself.
> > > It doesn't appear to be very useful to me, and I would think
> > > we could easily forget to update it :-)
> > >
> > > Thank you,
> > > Reiji
> > >
> >
> > Yes, it's better to remove it. The intention was to make sure the guest
> > generates the expected sequence of exits. In this case for example,
> > "1, .., 11, DONE" would be correct, but "1, .., 11, 12, DONE" would not.
>
> Sorry, the correct sequence should be "1, .., 10, DONE". And also, what
> I meant to say is that *original* intention was to check that, which
> wasn't actually completed as the incorrect sequence would also succeed.
Thank you for the comments and explaining the original intention.
I will remove that.
Thank you,
Reiji
