On Sat, May 27, 2023 at 12:39:57PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
> On Fri, May 26, 2023 at 1:18 AM Andrew Jones <ajones@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, May 25, 2023 at 03:38:35PM +0800, Haibo Xu wrote:
...
> > > + KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.a6),
> > > + KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.a7),
> > > + KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s2),
> > > + KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s3),
> > > + KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s4),
> > > + KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s5),
> > > + KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s6),
> > > + KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s7),
> > > + KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s8),
> > > + KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s9),
> > > + KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s10),
> > > + KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.s11),
> > > + KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.t3),
> > > + KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.t4),
> > > + KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.t5),
> > > + KVM_REG_RISCV | KVM_REG_SIZE_U64 | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE | KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.t6),
> >
> > ...all the above would just be indices rather than named registers. I
> > guess that's better for these registers.
> >
>
> You mean to show it as KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.regs[0]) ...
> KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.regs[31])?
>
I'm OK with these registers using their names in this list, it does look
better. However the original idea for these lists was that they would be
generated from print_reg(). In this case, print_reg() is generating them
with their number instead of name. Either print_reg() could learn how to
generate their names by handling the offset ranges of each register type,
e.g.
switch (reg_off) {
case 10 ... 17:
strdup_printf("... KVM_REG_RISCV_CORE_REG(regs.a%d),", reg_off - 10);
or we can use the numbers here in this list, or we can leave it as you
have it (i.e. done manually).
Thanks,
drew
