On Thu, 2008-08-21 at 15:19 +0200, Christian Ehrhardt wrote:
> Hollis Blanchard wrote:
> > Some initial comments:
> >
> > On Tue, 2008-08-19 at 12:36 +0200,
> ehrhardt@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> >
> >> + if (rw == KVM_PPCPV_PVMEM_READ) {
> >> + set_op(32, &newinst); /* lwz */
> >> + set_rt(get_rt(inst), &newinst); /* set
> original rt */
> >> + } else {
> >> + set_op(36, &newinst); /* stw */
> >> + set_rs(get_rs(inst), &newinst); /* set
> original rs */
> >> + }
> >>
> >
> > I think it's time we replaced these magic numbers (32, 36 above, but
> > also in the opcode switch statements) with named constants.
> >
> >
> Yes, but I wanted to keep it in sync with the emulation switch code
> here.
> Once we agree on this patch series it is easy to throw a numer->name
> patch on top.
> Or do you want me to put a renaming patch into the paravirtualization
> queue now ?
In general I think the philosophy should be to commit patches that we
all agree on *first*, and then patches that need more thought/discussion
later. That way we don't need to wait for consensus on all outstanding
patches before committing any of them.
--
Hollis Blanchard
IBM Linux Technology Center
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm-ppc" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
