[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending contr
From: |
Cornelia Huck |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control |
Date: |
Tue, 10 Oct 2017 13:39:23 +0200 |
On Tue, 10 Oct 2017 12:28:35 +0200
Thomas Huth <address@hidden> wrote:
> On 09.10.2017 17:00, Halil Pasic wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 10/09/2017 01:07 PM, Thomas Huth wrote:
> >> Then, in the follow up patches, you do something like this:
> >>
> >> return (IOInstEnding){.cc = 0};
> >>
> >> ... and that just looks very, very ugly in my eyes. The more I look at
> >
> > Interesting, I found this quite expressive.
>
> C'mon, we're writing C code, not Java ;-)
Every time I read that construct, I die a little bit inside...
> Well, you already gave a description in your comment in the struct
> IOInstEnding, so maybe something similar? Or maybe this could even be
> merged with the definitions for the SIGP status codes:
>
> #define SIGP_CC_ORDER_CODE_ACCEPTED 0
> #define SIGP_CC_STATUS_STORED 1
> #define SIGP_CC_BUSY 2
> #define SIGP_CC_NOT_OPERATIONAL 3
I'd rather not reuse the definitions for a different instruction, even
if they are similar in semantics.
> > Sorry, I may be a bit to persistent on this one: I don't think it's
> > a huge difference, but I don't feel great about changing something to
> > what I think is (slightly) worse without being first convinced that
> > I was wrong.
>
> In the end, the code has to be accepted by the maintainers, so let's
> leave the decision up to them whether they like this typedef struct
> IOInstEnding or not...
Here's a strong 'do not like' from me... using an enum or define is
fine with me.
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 3/8] s390x: improve error handling for SSCH and RSCH, (continued)
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 5/8] s390x: refactor error handling for CSCH handler, Halil Pasic, 2017/10/04
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control, Halil Pasic, 2017/10/04
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control, Thomas Huth, 2017/10/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control, Halil Pasic, 2017/10/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control, Thomas Huth, 2017/10/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control, Halil Pasic, 2017/10/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control, Thomas Huth, 2017/10/10
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control,
Cornelia Huck <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control, Halil Pasic, 2017/10/10
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control, Halil Pasic, 2017/10/10
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control, Thomas Huth, 2017/10/12
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control, Halil Pasic, 2017/10/12
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control, Halil Pasic, 2017/10/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control, Thomas Huth, 2017/10/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control, Cornelia Huck, 2017/10/17
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control, Halil Pasic, 2017/10/17
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control, Cornelia Huck, 2017/10/09
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 2/8] s390x/css: IO instr handler ending control, Halil Pasic, 2017/10/09