Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 2/6] target-arm: do not set do_interrupt handler for AArch64 user mode

[Ard Biesheuvel]

On 9 September 2014 17:25, Peter Maydell <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 5 September 2014 13:24, Ard Biesheuvel <address@hidden> wrote:
>> From: Rob Herring <address@hidden>
>>
>> User mode emulation should never get interrupts and thus should not
>> use the system emulation exception handler function. Remove the reference,
>> and '#ifndef USER_MODE_ONLY' the function itself as well, so that we can add
>> system mode only functionality to it.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Rob Herring <address@hidden>
>> Signed-off-by: Ard Biesheuvel <address@hidden>
>> ---
>>  target-arm/cpu64.c      | 2 ++
>>  target-arm/helper-a64.c | 3 +++
>>  2 files changed, 5 insertions(+)
>>
>> diff --git a/target-arm/cpu64.c b/target-arm/cpu64.c
>> index aa42803959be..9f88b9f4eea0 100644
>> --- a/target-arm/cpu64.c
>> +++ b/target-arm/cpu64.c
>> @@ -196,7 +196,9 @@ static void aarch64_cpu_class_init(ObjectClass *oc, void 
>> *data)
>>  {
>>      CPUClass *cc = CPU_CLASS(oc);
>>
>> +#if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
>>      cc->do_interrupt = aarch64_cpu_do_interrupt;
>> +#endif
>>      cc->set_pc = aarch64_cpu_set_pc;
>>      cc->gdb_read_register = aarch64_cpu_gdb_read_register;
>>      cc->gdb_write_register = aarch64_cpu_gdb_write_register;
>> diff --git a/target-arm/helper-a64.c b/target-arm/helper-a64.c
>> index 2e9ef64786ae..89b913ee9396 100644
>> --- a/target-arm/helper-a64.c
>> +++ b/target-arm/helper-a64.c
>> @@ -438,6 +438,8 @@ uint64_t HELPER(crc32c_64)(uint64_t acc, uint64_t val, 
>> uint32_t bytes)
>>      return crc32c(acc, buf, bytes) ^ 0xffffffff;
>>  }
>>
>> +#if !defined(CONFIG_USER_ONLY)
>> +
>>  /* Handle a CPU exception.  */
>>  void aarch64_cpu_do_interrupt(CPUState *cs)
>>  {
>> @@ -512,3 +514,4 @@ void aarch64_cpu_do_interrupt(CPUState *cs)
>>      env->pc = addr;
>>      cs->interrupt_request |= CPU_INTERRUPT_EXITTB;
>>  }
>> +#endif
>
> For consistency we need to not set do_interrupt in
> the arm_cpu_class_init() function too. (Then we'll
> have it be NULL in all cases, since v7m already
> guards its assignment with an ifdef.)
>

Would you prefer a single patch that does both?
Or a followup patch?