On 08/24/2010 04:37 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
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?
Can we reuse one or the other? Perhaps with extensions?
--
error compiling committee.c: too many arguments to function
--
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
