On Fri, 2 Oct 2026 at 15:37, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <[email protected]> wrote: > Does that update sound good to you? > > * Called from cpu_handle_interrupt() with the BQL held. Identify which, > * if any, of the possibly multiple pending interrupts specified by > * @interrupt_request should be taken, using the target architecture's > * prioritization and masking rules. If an interrupt can be taken, update > * the emulated CPU state for interrupt entry.
Looks good to me. > With the update desc I wonder if we should rename the > helper as cpu_take_interrupt()... Mmm. the "exec" in the current method name is "because it's called by cpu_exec", I think (compare cpu_exec_reset, cpu_exec_halt), which is not necessarily a very useful thing to encode in the method name. I guess my opinions are: * don't bother renaming unless we think we have a clearly better name/set of names * if we rename one of the cpu_exec_foo then we should probably rename all of them in some consistent way * a new set of names would ideally make it clearer what the difference is between do_interrupt and cpu_exec_interrupt (I can't remember myself why we need both or what the difference is offhand...) thanks -- PMM
