On 23 May 2014 19:10, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: > Il 23/05/2014 19:59, Peter Maydell ha scritto: > >> On 2 May 2014 15:33, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote: >> I was looking at cleaning up the horrible ifdef ladder a little >> lower in this function, and I noticed this code had been >> added recently. Why is TARGET_I386 a special case here? > > > Because a hypervisor (cpu_svm_check_intercept_param) can block the > interrupt. Note that CPU_INTERRUPT_INIT is actually the same bit as > CPU_INTERRUPT_RESET.
Ugh. This suggests reset is probably not really generic... > The whole #ifdef mess should probably be changed to a function in cpu.c, now > that we don't have AREG0 constraints anymore. Well, I'm planning to move the bodies of all the ifdefs into a cpu_check_interrupts() provided by the target's cpu.h[*]. This x86 bit is just awkward because it means there's x86 stuff both before and after the generic reset code. [*] not a cpu method since it seemed like it would be a bad idea to have a function pointer call every time round the main loop when there's a blocked interrupt... thanks -- PMM
