On 16.10.2015 04:14, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 10/16/2015 03:36 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 14 October 2015 at 22:02, Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> wrote: >>> On 10/15/2015 06:34 AM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> >>>> This is still the same cryptic comment we have in the >>>> targets which do do this. Can we have something >>>> that is a bit more explanatory about what is going on and >>>> why we need to do this, please? >>> >>> >>> Suggestions? >> >> ...well, I don't entirely understand the problem it's >> fixing, which is why I'm asking for a better comment :-) > > Heh. Fair enough. How about > > /* The address covered by the breakpoint must be included in > [tb->pc, tb->pc + tb->size) in order to for it to be > properly cleared -- thus we increment the PC here so that > the logic setting tb->size below does the right thing. */ > > There are two edge cases that cause the problem with clearing that > could be described, but I think that the comment becomes too bulky, as > well as confuses the situation for someone cutting-and-pasting the > logic to a new port.
Maybe we could rather fix that condition in tb_invalidate_phys_page_range()? It seems weird that it can't handle a zero-sized TB. Best, Sergey
