On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 08:46:34 +0100 Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote:
> Am 30.01.2013 08:18, schrieb Igor Mammedov: > > On Wed, 30 Jan 2013 01:34:18 +0100 > > Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: > > > >> Commit b4558d7481aefc865b0b52bf9b285ebcf2e8b59f ((x86/Sparc/PPC)-user: > >> fix cpu_copy) added a CPU reset after cpu_copy() inside linux-user code. > >> This reverses the register copying that cpu_copy() does. > >> > >> Clean this up by moving the cpu_reset() call to after cpu_init() but > >> before memcpy(). This matches the initial CPU creation in linux-user. > >> > >> Cc: Blue Swirl <blauwir...@gmail.com> > >> Signed-off-by: Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> > >> Cc: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> > >> --- > >> exec.c | 6 ++++++ > >> linux-user/syscall.c | 3 --- > >> 2 Dateien geändert, 6 Zeilen hinzugefügt(+), 3 Zeilen entfernt(-) > >> > >> diff --git a/exec.c b/exec.c > >> index b85508b..8dfa458 100644 > >> --- a/exec.c > >> +++ b/exec.c > >> @@ -537,6 +537,12 @@ CPUArchState *cpu_copy(CPUArchState *env) > >> CPUWatchpoint *wp; > >> #endif > >> > >> +#ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY > > unnecessary ifdef-feniry here, cpu_copy() is linux-user only thing. > > It is currently used only by linux-user (and hopefully will stay that > way :)) but I don't see the code limited to CONFIG_USER_ONLY? If we don't have to have this define (i.e. nothing breaks without it), lets skip it. As alternative we could move cpu_copy() to linux-user as the only user of it, it will help to cleanup exec.c of uncommon code. > > Andreas [...] >
