On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 04:13:38PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 08/24/2010 02:30 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote: > >x86_emulate_insn() will return 1 if instruction can be restarted > >without re-entering a guest. > > > > So now we have an undocumented -1/0/1 return code? > > Better to have an enum for this. > We already have two. First is X86EMUL_ (not enum but close) for more or less internal emulator use. Second is EMULATE_* for users of emulate_instruction() now you want one more enum for communication between emulate_instruction() and x86_emulate_insn(). Lost in enums. emulate_instruction() and x86_emulate_insn() are tightly coupled right now should we define formal interface between them? May be comment will be enough? -- Gleb. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
