On 10/4/19 5:34 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> Or, as alternative, something like "cpu_shall_exit()" which only
> wraps the single check.
I would prefer this to the full cpu_loop_exit_restore.
It's harder to imagine what else might need doing for
some other user of the interface.
r~
David Hildenbrand writes:
> On 04.10.19 14:11, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 09:02, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>>> So shall we leave this patch as-is (adding a summary of what you
>>> explained to the description) or shall we somehow factor out the
>>> TCG-internal-thingy check?
On 04.10.19 14:11, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 09:02, David Hildenbrand wrote:
>> So shall we leave this patch as-is (adding a summary of what you
>> explained to the description) or shall we somehow factor out the
>> TCG-internal-thingy check?
>
> Nothing else in target code tou
On Fri, 4 Oct 2019 at 09:02, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> So shall we leave this patch as-is (adding a summary of what you
> explained to the description) or shall we somehow factor out the
> TCG-internal-thingy check?
Nothing else in target code touches the icount data structures,
so if this s390
David Hildenbrand writes:
> On 02.10.19 21:34, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> On 10/2/19 9:47 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>>> There is still the special case of EXECUTE of MVCL, which I suspect must
>>> have
>>> some failure mode that we're not considering -- the setting and clearing of
>>> ex_v
On 02.10.19 21:34, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/2/19 9:47 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
>> There is still the special case of EXECUTE of MVCL, which I suspect must have
>> some failure mode that we're not considering -- the setting and clearing of
>> ex_value can't help. I have a suspicion that
On 10/2/19 9:47 AM, Richard Henderson wrote:
> There is still the special case of EXECUTE of MVCL, which I suspect must have
> some failure mode that we're not considering -- the setting and clearing of
> ex_value can't help. I have a suspicion that we need to special case that
> within helper_ex,
On 02.10.19 18:47, Richard Henderson wrote:
> On 10/2/19 2:58 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>>
>> David Hildenbrand writes:
>>
>>> MVCL is interruptible and we should check for interrupts and process
>>> them after writing back the variables to the registers. Let's check
>>> for any exit requests and exi
On 10/2/19 2:58 AM, Alex Bennée wrote:
>
> David Hildenbrand writes:
>
>> MVCL is interruptible and we should check for interrupts and process
>> them after writing back the variables to the registers. Let's check
>> for any exit requests and exit to the main loop.
>>
>> When booting Fedora 30,
David Hildenbrand writes:
> MVCL is interruptible and we should check for interrupts and process
> them after writing back the variables to the registers. Let's check
> for any exit requests and exit to the main loop.
>
> When booting Fedora 30, I can see a handful of these exits and it seems
>
MVCL is interruptible and we should check for interrupts and process
them after writing back the variables to the registers. Let's check
for any exit requests and exit to the main loop.
When booting Fedora 30, I can see a handful of these exits and it seems
to work reliable. (it never get's trigge
11 matches
Mail list logo
