> From: Paolo Bonzini [mailto:pbonz...@redhat.com]
> On 12/01/2015 13:40, Pavel Dovgaluk wrote:
> >>>
> >> > Perhaps check the replay_interrupt() outside, in an && with "if
> >> > (unlikely(interrupt_request))"?
> > You mean that I should wrap whole condition into "unlikely"?
> >
>
> No, I wanted to have a single check of "replay_interrupt()" and/or
> "replay_has_interrupt()".
>
> BTW, I think this is incorrect:
>
> > + if ((replay_mode != REPLAY_MODE_PLAY
> > + || replay_has_interrupt())
> > + && cc->cpu_exec_interrupt(cpu, interrupt_request))
> > {
> > + replay_interrupt();
>
> because cc->cpu_exec_interrupt() can exit with cpu_loop_exit(cpu).
Haven't found any. Do you have an example?
>
> I guess it could be something like this:
>
> if (replay_mode == REPLAY_MODE_PLAY && !replay_has_interrupt()) {
> /* do nothing */
> } else if (interrupt_request & CPU_INTERRUPT_HALT) {
> replay_interrupt();
> ...
> cpu_loop_exit(cpu);
> } else if (interrupt_request & CPU_INTERRUPT_INIT) {
> replay_interrupt();
> ...
> cpu_loop_exit(cpu);
> } else {
> replay_interrupt();
> if (cc->cpu_exec_interrupt(cpu, interrupt_request)) {
> next_tb = 0;
> }
> }
Is it normal that processing of the reset request does not execute
cpu_loop_exit(cpu)?
> >>> > > #else
> >>> > > - if (interrupt_request & CPU_INTERRUPT_RESET) {
> >>> > > + if ((interrupt_request & CPU_INTERRUPT_RESET)
> >>> > > + && replay_interrupt()) {
> >>> > > cpu_reset(cpu);
> >>> > > }
> >>> > > #endif
Pavel Dovgalyuk
