Hi Pierrick, December 4, 2024 at 11:41 PM, "Pierrick Bouvier" wrote: > On 12/3/24 00:45, Julian Ganz wrote: > > > > > Hi, > > December 2, 2024 at 8:26 PM, "Julian Ganz" wrote: > > > > > > > > diff --git a/include/qemu/qemu-plugin.h b/include/qemu/qemu-plugin.h > > > index 0fba36ae02..9c67374b7e 100644 > > > --- a/include/qemu/qemu-plugin.h > > > +++ b/include/qemu/qemu-plugin.h > > > @@ -154,6 +154,49 @@ typedef void > > > (*qemu_plugin_vcpu_simple_cb_t)(qemu_plugin_id_t id, > > > > > <snip> > > > > > > > > +/** > > > + * typedef qemu_plugin_vcpu_discon_cb_t - vcpu discontinuity callback > > > + * @vcpu_index: the current vcpu context > > > + * @type: the type of discontinuity > > > + * @from_pc: the source of the discontinuity, e.g. the PC before the > > > + * transition > > > + * @to_pc: the PC pointing to the next instruction to be executed > > > + * > > > + * The excact semantics of @from_pc depends on @the type of > > > discontinuity. For > > > + * interrupts, @from_pc will point to the next instruction which would > > > have > > > + * been executed. For exceptions and host calls, @from_pc will point to > > > the > > > + * instruction that caused the exception or issued the host call. Note > > > that > > > + * in the case of exceptions, the instruction is not retired and thus > > > not > > > + * observable via general instruction exec callbacks. The same may be > > > the case > > > + * for some host calls such as hypervisor call "exceptions". > > > > > Some more notes about this bit: I originally tried to make the from_pc > > semantics independent from the type of event, i.e. either of the two > > cases. I obviously did not succeed in doing so. As, in most cases, the > > instruction pointed to by from_pc is not observable via exec callbacks > > I could also not test this behaviour in the testing plugin (see patch > > 11). I am therefore in favor for dropping the from_pc for the next > > iteration of this patch series. > > > Does it mean that information returned should be dependent of type of event, > as we previously discussed on v1?
Yes, and I don't like it. Regards, Julian Ganz
