From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:56897) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpRzx-0002SG-NO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:31:34 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpRzt-0000q0-MQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:31:33 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:46775 helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dpRzt-0000nH-GA for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:31:29 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098413.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.21/8.16.0.21) with SMTP id v864SgWD091303 for ; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:31:27 -0400 Received: from e18.ny.us.ibm.com (e18.ny.us.ibm.com [129.33.205.208]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2ct3hgvj2f-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 06 Sep 2017 00:31:27 -0400 Received: from localhost by e18.ny.us.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 6 Sep 2017 00:31:27 -0400 Date: Wed, 6 Sep 2017 12:31:08 +0800 From: Dong Jia Shi References: <20170830163609.50260-1-pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170830163609.50260-5-pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170831115535.1e4201d3.cohuck@redhat.com> <7540741b-d230-e7c4-50d3-036f31997c8b@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20170905182546.00457332.cohuck@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Message-Id: <20170906043108.GY31680@bjsdjshi@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 4/9] s390x: refactor error handling for SSCH and RSCH List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Halil Pasic Cc: Cornelia Huck , Xiao Feng Ren , Dong Jia Shi , Pierre Morel , qemu-devel@nongnu.org * Halil Pasic [2017-09-06 00:30:58 +0200]: [...] > > > >> But I guess, I was afraid of somebody blaming me for this > >> comment (such TODOs in production code are a bit strange -- what > >> does it mean: we did not bother to figure it out?). > > > > For one, the TODO is preexisting... and we really should remember to > > figure out if there's something better rather than just drop the > > comment. > > > > (And I sure hope nobody is using vfio-ccw in production yet...) > > > Since blame says the TODO has been around since 2017-05-17 > let me have a critical look at it. > > At a first glance I would say addressing exception for SSCH > is not what we want: the only possibility I see for address > exception for SSCH is due to the ORB address. But if that's > the case we will never reach the code in question. Agree. > So I suppose we can do better. As the comment said, I'm (still) in the state of 'wondering'. > > Adding Ren. @Ren: Do you agree with my analysis. If you do, > I could come up with a proposal what to do -- after some reading. If you have a better idea, and time, why not? ;) > > Regards, > Halil -- Dong Jia Shi