On Mon, Jun 06, 2016 at 05:57:35PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 6 June 2016 at 15:55, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > > Ping! > > Thanks for the review, Sergey. Unless anybody else wants to review > or wants to take it through their tree (Riku?), I propose to apply > this to master sometime later this week.
Feel free to apply these yourself, Acked-by: Riku Voipio <riku.voi...@linaro.org> > thanks > -- PMM > > > On 17 May 2016 at 15:18, Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org> wrote: > >> I was trying to reason about user-mode's handling of signal masks, > >> and I found our current code a bit confusing, so I cleaned it up. > >> > >> At the moment for user-only mode cpu_resume_from_signal() takes a > >> usercontext pointer; if this is non-NULL then it has some awkward > >> OS and CPU specific code to set the signal mask from something > >> inside the usercontext before doing the same kind of siglongjmp() > >> that the softmmu cpu_resume_from_signal() does. > >> > >> In fact the two use cases are completely separate: > >> * almost all calls to cpu_resume_from_signal() pass a NULL puc > >> argument (and most of those are softmmu-only anyway) > >> * only the code path handle_cpu_signal -> page_unprotect -> > >> tb_invalidate_phys_page -> cpu_resume_from_signal will pass > >> a non-NULL puc. > >> > >> The cleanups are: > >> * pull the call to cpu_resume_from_signal() up through the > >> callstack so we do the signal mask manipulation in > >> handle_cpu_signal() > >> * drop the OS/CPU spceific code to get a signal mask out of > >> a usercontext, because in the specific case of handle_cpu_signal() > >> we already have the signal mask value and can just use it > >> * rename cpu_resume_from_signal() to cpu_loop_exit_noexc(), > >> since all the remaining callsites are not in fact signal handlers > >> or even called from signal handlers > >> * get rid of an ugly TARGET_I386 ifdef in user-exec.c by moving > >> the i386-specific code into its handle_mmu_fault hook. > >> > >> Changes v1->v2: > >> * patches 1-4 are the same and already reviewed > >> * patch 5 is new, and just adds a clarifying comment to > >> do_interrupt_user() > >> * patch 6 is the old patch 5, and now sets env->exception_next_eip > >> to -1 as a clear indication that the value is not going to be used > >> (as noted in the comment in the new patch 5) > >> > >> thanks > >> -- PMM > >> > >> > >> Peter Maydell (6): > >> translate-all.c: Don't pass puc, locked to tb_invalidate_phys_page() > >> user-exec: Push resume-from-signal code out to handle_cpu_signal() > >> cpu-exec: Rename cpu_resume_from_signal() to cpu_loop_exit_noexc() > >> user-exec: Don't reextract sigmask from usercontext pointer > >> target-i386: Add comment about do_interrupt_user() next_eip argument > >> target-i386: Move user-mode exception actions out of user-exec.c > >> > >> cpu-exec-common.c | 8 ++--- > >> exec.c | 2 +- > >> hw/i386/kvmvapic.c | 2 +- > >> include/exec/exec-all.h | 2 +- > >> target-i386/bpt_helper.c | 2 +- > >> target-i386/helper.c | 2 ++ > >> target-i386/seg_helper.c | 6 +++- > >> target-lm32/helper.c | 2 +- > >> target-s390x/helper.c | 2 +- > >> target-xtensa/helper.c | 2 +- > >> translate-all.c | 40 ++++++++++++--------- > >> translate-all.h | 2 +- > >> user-exec.c | 93 > >> +++++++++++++++++++++--------------------------- > >> 13 files changed, 82 insertions(+), 83 deletions(-) > >> > >> -- > >> 1.9.1