[2/3] target-i386:make hw_breakpoint_enabled return bool type

Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
---
 target-i386/cpu.h |    4 ++--
 1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)

On 4 December 2012 08:11, liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
> Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
> ---
>  target-i386/cpu.h |    4 ++--
>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.h b/target-i386/cpu.h
> index 9abec3e..8ca25c8 100644
> --- a/target-i386/cpu.h
> +++ b/target-i386/cpu.h
> @@ -996,9 +996,9 @@ int cpu_x86_handle_mmu_fault(CPUX86State *env, target_ulong addr,
>  #define cpu_handle_mmu_fault cpu_x86_handle_mmu_fault
>  void cpu_x86_set_a20(CPUX86State *env, int a20_state);
>
> -static inline int hw_breakpoint_enabled(unsigned long dr7, int index)
> +static inline bool hw_breakpoint_enabled(unsigned long dr7, int index)
>  {
> -    return (dr7 >> (index * 2)) & 3;
> +    return !!((dr7 >> (index * 2)) & 3);
>  }
>
>  static inline int hw_breakpoint_type(unsigned long dr7, int index)

Doesn't this break the use of this function in target-i386/seg_helper.c:

  if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) == 0x1) {

which specifically wants to determine whether the breakpoint is
enabled only locally?

-- PMM

On 2012-12-04 11:23, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 4 December 2012 08:11, liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> wrote:
>> Signed-off-by: liguang <lig.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> ---
>>  target-i386/cpu.h |    4 ++--
>>  1 files changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/target-i386/cpu.h b/target-i386/cpu.h
>> index 9abec3e..8ca25c8 100644
>> --- a/target-i386/cpu.h
>> +++ b/target-i386/cpu.h
>> @@ -996,9 +996,9 @@ int cpu_x86_handle_mmu_fault(CPUX86State *env, target_ulong addr,
>>  #define cpu_handle_mmu_fault cpu_x86_handle_mmu_fault
>>  void cpu_x86_set_a20(CPUX86State *env, int a20_state);
>>
>> -static inline int hw_breakpoint_enabled(unsigned long dr7, int index)
>> +static inline bool hw_breakpoint_enabled(unsigned long dr7, int index)
>>  {
>> -    return (dr7 >> (index * 2)) & 3;
>> +    return !!((dr7 >> (index * 2)) & 3);
>>  }
>>
>>  static inline int hw_breakpoint_type(unsigned long dr7, int index)
> 
> Doesn't this break the use of this function in target-i386/seg_helper.c:
> 
>   if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) == 0x1) {
> 
> which specifically wants to determine whether the breakpoint is
> enabled only locally?

It does. And that also indicates the function is misnamed. Something
like hw_breakpoint_state might be better.

Jan

On 4 December 2012 11:11, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
> On 2012-12-04 11:23, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Doesn't this break the use of this function in target-i386/seg_helper.c:
>>
>>   if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) == 0x1) {
>>
>> which specifically wants to determine whether the breakpoint is
>> enabled only locally?
>
> It does. And that also indicates the function is misnamed. Something
> like hw_breakpoint_state might be better.

And/or we could just refactor the code in seg_helper.c, which is
a nasty mix of direct access to dr[7] and using the hw_breakpoint_*
functions.

-- PMM

在 2012-12-04二的 11:26 +0000，Peter Maydell写道：
> On 4 December 2012 11:11, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
> > On 2012-12-04 11:23, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> Doesn't this break the use of this function in target-i386/seg_helper.c:
> >>
> >>   if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) == 0x1) {
> >>
> >> which specifically wants to determine whether the breakpoint is
> >> enabled only locally?

 It was changed to 'if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i)) {'
 in patch 3/3

> >
> > It does. And that also indicates the function is misnamed. Something
> > like hw_breakpoint_state might be better.
> 

misnamed? I think hw_breakpoint_enabled is ask whether breakpoint
                                 ^^^^^^^^
is enabled or not, so it's almost suitable.

> And/or we could just refactor the code in seg_helper.c, which is
> a nasty mix of direct access to dr[7] and using the hw_breakpoint_*
> functions.
> 
> -- PMM

On 2012-12-05 01:51, li guang wrote:
> 在 2012-12-04二的 11:26 +0000，Peter Maydell写道：
>> On 4 December 2012 11:11, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
>>> On 2012-12-04 11:23, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>>> Doesn't this break the use of this function in target-i386/seg_helper.c:
>>>>
>>>>   if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) == 0x1) {
>>>>
>>>> which specifically wants to determine whether the breakpoint is
>>>> enabled only locally?
> 
>  It was changed to 'if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i)) {'
>  in patch 3/3

Which is broken as it neglects the different types of "enabled".

> 
>>>
>>> It does. And that also indicates the function is misnamed. Something
>>> like hw_breakpoint_state might be better.
>>
> 
> misnamed? I think hw_breakpoint_enabled is ask whether breakpoint
>                                  ^^^^^^^^
> is enabled or not, so it's almost suitable.

There are two types of enabled breakpoints: task-local and global. The
current hw_breakpoint_enabled returns both as a bitmask, and that is
causing the confusing and regression in your patches.

Jan

在 2012-12-05三的 09:53 +0100，Jan Kiszka写道：
> On 2012-12-05 01:51, li guang wrote:
> > 在 2012-12-04二的 11:26 +0000，Peter Maydell写道：
> >> On 4 December 2012 11:11, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
> >>> On 2012-12-04 11:23, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >>>> Doesn't this break the use of this function in target-i386/seg_helper.c:
> >>>>
> >>>>   if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) == 0x1) {
> >>>>
> >>>> which specifically wants to determine whether the breakpoint is
> >>>> enabled only locally?
> > 
> >  It was changed to 'if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i)) {'
> >  in patch 3/3
> 
> Which is broken as it neglects the different types of "enabled".
> 
> > 
> >>>
> >>> It does. And that also indicates the function is misnamed. Something
> >>> like hw_breakpoint_state might be better.
> >>
> > 
> > misnamed? I think hw_breakpoint_enabled is ask whether breakpoint
> >                                  ^^^^^^^^
> > is enabled or not, so it's almost suitable.
> 
> There are two types of enabled breakpoints: task-local and global. The
> current hw_breakpoint_enabled returns both as a bitmask, and that is
> causing the confusing and regression in your patches.
> 

It is no doubt that 'hw_breakpoint_enabled' is only check local
breakpoint, you know, so, do we really have to handle all the cases
since seems there's nowhere uses global breapoints at present?

> Jan
>

在 2012-12-06四的 10:08 +0800，li guang写道：
> 在 2012-12-05三的 09:53 +0100，Jan Kiszka写道：
> > On 2012-12-05 01:51, li guang wrote:
> > > 在 2012-12-04二的 11:26 +0000，Peter Maydell写道：
> > >> On 4 December 2012 11:11, Jan Kiszka <jan.kiszka@siemens.com> wrote:
> > >>> On 2012-12-04 11:23, Peter Maydell wrote:
> > >>>> Doesn't this break the use of this function in target-i386/seg_helper.c:
> > >>>>
> > >>>>   if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i) == 0x1) {
> > >>>>
> > >>>> which specifically wants to determine whether the breakpoint is
> > >>>> enabled only locally?
> > > 
> > >  It was changed to 'if (hw_breakpoint_enabled(env->dr[7], i)) {'
> > >  in patch 3/3
> > 
> > Which is broken as it neglects the different types of "enabled".
> > 
> > > 
> > >>>
> > >>> It does. And that also indicates the function is misnamed. Something
> > >>> like hw_breakpoint_state might be better.
> > >>
> > > 
> > > misnamed? I think hw_breakpoint_enabled is ask whether breakpoint
> > >                                  ^^^^^^^^
> > > is enabled or not, so it's almost suitable.
> > 
> > There are two types of enabled breakpoints: task-local and global. The
> > current hw_breakpoint_enabled returns both as a bitmask, and that is
> > causing the confusing and regression in your patches.
> > 
> 
> It is no doubt that 'hw_breakpoint_enabled' is only check local
> breakpoint, you know, so, do we really have to handle all the cases
> since seems there's nowhere uses global breapoints at present?

Oh, you're right, I'll fix it.
Thanks!

> 
> > Jan
> > 
>