Messages in this thread | | | Subject | Re: [RFC PATCH 1/3] kvm: x86: Rename KVM_DEBUGREG_RELOAD to KVM_DEBUGREG_NEED_RELOAD | From | Xiaoyao Li <> | Date | Tue, 28 Apr 2020 00:06:20 +0800 |
| |
On 4/27/2020 10:37 PM, Peter Xu wrote: > On Sat, Apr 25, 2020 at 09:48:17AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >> On 24/04/20 22:21, Peter Xu wrote: >>> But then shouldn't DIRTY be set as long as KVM_DEBUGREG_BP_ENABLED is set every >>> time before vmenter? Then it'll somehow go back to switch_db_regs, iiuc... >>> >>> IIUC RELOAD actually wants to say "reload only for this iteration", that's why >>> it's cleared after each reload. So maybe... RELOAD_ONCE? >>> >>> (Btw, do we have debug regs tests somewhere no matter inside guest or with >>> KVM_SET_GUEST_DEBUG?) >> >> What about KVM_DEBUGREG_EFF_DB_DIRTY? > > The problem is iiuc we always reload eff_db[] no matter which bit in > switch_db_regs is set, so this may still not clearly identify this bit from the > rest of the two bits... > > Actually I think eff_db[] is a bit confusing here in that it can be either the > host specified dbreg values or the guest specified depends on the dynamic value > of KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP. > > I am thinking maybe it's clearer to have host_db[] and guest_db[], then only > until vmenter do we load either of them by:
host_db[] is somewhat misleading, how about user_db[] (just like user_fpu)
> if (KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP) > load(host_db[]); > else > load(gueet_db[]); > > Then each db[] will be very clear on what's the data is about. And we don't > need to check KVM_GUESTDBG_USE_HW_BP every time when accessing eff_db[]. >
| |