On Wed, 31 May 2017 18:33:24 +0200 Greg Kurz <gr...@kaod.org> wrote: > On Wed, 31 May 2017 18:17:37 +0200 > Claudio Imbrenda <imbre...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote: > > > On Wed, 31 May 2017 16:09:33 +0100 > > Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> wrote: > > > > > The thread-id of 0 means any CPU but we then ignore the fact we > > > find the first_cpu in this case who can have an index of 0. > > > Instead of bailing out just test if we have managed to match up > > > thread-id to a CPU. > > > > > > Otherwise you get: > > > gdb_handle_packet: command='vCont;C04:0;c' > > > put_packet: reply='E22' > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Alex Bennée <alex.ben...@linaro.org> > > > --- > > > gdbstub.c | 4 ++-- > > > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > > > diff --git a/gdbstub.c b/gdbstub.c > > > index a249846954..29c9ed3002 100644 > > > --- a/gdbstub.c > > > +++ b/gdbstub.c > > > @@ -934,8 +934,8 @@ static int gdb_handle_vcont(GDBState *s, const > > > char *p) > > > * CPU first, and only then we can use its index. > > > */ > > > cpu = find_cpu(idx); > > > - /* invalid CPU/thread specified */ > > > - if (!idx || !cpu) { > > > + /* invalid thread specified, cpu not found. */ > > > + if (!cpu) { > > > res = -EINVAL; > > > goto out; > > > } > > > > This is strange. cpu_index() is defined as: > > > > static inline int cpu_index(CPUState *cpu) > > { > > #if defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY) > > return cpu->host_tid; > > #else > > return cpu->cpu_index + 1; > > #endif > > } > > > > therefore it shouldn't return 0 under any circumstance, and > > I think it is 0 for first_cpu in user mode.
in linux-user/syscall.c: info->tid = gettid(); cpu->host_tid = info->tid; kernel thread-ids are system-wide unique and can't be 0 > > find_cpu(idx) should also fail if idx == 0, because internally it > > also uses cpu_index() > > > > on the other hand, you say that the patch does fix the problem for > > you, which really confuses me. > > > > > > > > (probably) completely unrelatedly, this: > > > > res = qemu_strtoul(p + 1, &p, 16, &tmp); > > > > should be like this instead: > > > > res = qemu_strtoul(p, &p, 16, &tmp); > > > > but this shouldn't impact you in any way. > > > > > > >