On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 04:41:10PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> On 08/24/2010 04:37 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >On Tue, Aug 24, 2010 at 04:13:38PM +0300, Avi Kivity wrote:
> >> On 08/24/2010 02:30 PM, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> >>>x86_emulate_insn() will return 1 if instruction can be restarted
> >>>without re-entering a guest.
> >>>
> >>So now we have an undocumented -1/0/1 return code?
> >>
> >>Better to have an enum for this.
> >>
> >We already have two. First is X86EMUL_ (not enum but close) for
> >more or less internal emulator use. Second is EMULATE_* for users of
> >emulate_instruction() now you want one more enum for communication
> >between emulate_instruction() and x86_emulate_insn(). Lost in enums.
> >emulate_instruction() and x86_emulate_insn() are tightly coupled right
> >now should we define formal interface between them? May be comment will
> >be enough?
>
> Can we reuse one or the other? Perhaps with extensions?
>
We can, of course. But for me it looks as arbitrary as -1/0/1 since not
all enum values have meanings to the caller.
--
Gleb.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
