qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH 0/9] Replace remaining target_ulong in system-mode accel


From: Anton Johansson
Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/9] Replace remaining target_ulong in system-mode accel
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 2023 12:45:51 +0200

On 21/09/23, Michael Tokarev wrote:
> 07.08.2023 18:56, Anton Johansson via wrote:
> > This patchset replaces the remaining uses of target_ulong in the accel/
> > directory.  Specifically, the address type of a few kvm/hvf functions
> > is widened to vaddr, and the address type of the cpu_[st|ld]*()
> > functions is changed to abi_ptr (which is re-typedef'd to vaddr in
> > system mode).
> > 
> > As a starting point, my goal is to be able to build cputlb.c once for
> > system mode, and this is a step in that direction by reducing the
> > target-dependence of accel/.
> > 
> > * Changes in v2:
> >      - Removed explicit target_ulong casts from 3rd and 4th patches.
> > 
> > Anton Johansson (9):
> >    accel/kvm: Widen pc/saved_insn for kvm_sw_breakpoint
> >    accel/hvf: Widen pc/saved_insn for hvf_sw_breakpoint
> >    target: Use vaddr for kvm_arch_[insert|remove]_hw_breakpoint
> >    target: Use vaddr for hvf_arch_[insert|remove]_hw_breakpoint
> >    Replace target_ulong with abi_ptr in cpu_[st|ld]*()
> >    include/exec: typedef abi_ptr to vaddr in softmmu
> >    include/exec: Widen tlb_hit/tlb_hit_page()
> >    accel/tcg: Widen address arg. in tlb_compare_set()
> >    accel/tcg: Update run_on_cpu_data static assert
> 
> Pinging a relatively old patchset, - which fixes from here needs to
> go to stable-8.1?
> 
> The context: 
> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/20230721205827.7502-1-anjo@rev.ng/
> And according to this email:
> 
> https://lore.kernel.org/qemu-devel/00e9e08eae1004ef67fe8dca3aaf5043e6863faa.camel@gmail.com/
> 
> at least "include/exec: Widen tlb_hit/tlb_hit_page()" should go to 8.1,
> something else?
> 
> Thanks,
> 
> /mjt

If the patch above is the only one needed to fix the segfault (haven't
tested myself), pulling it in isolation is fine as it doesn't depend on 
any of the other patches.

The rest of the patches can be delayed without issue.

-- 
Anton Johansson
rev.ng Labs Srl.



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]