From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from zen.linaro.local ([81.128.185.34]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m188sm7823372wma.27.2017.02.15.06.51.03 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Wed, 15 Feb 2017 06:51:03 -0800 (PST) Received: from zen (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by zen.linaro.local (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 62B1A3E00FA; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:51:03 +0000 (GMT) References: <1486065742-28639-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <1486065742-28639-4-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <87mvdnvcxx.fsf@linaro.org> <87inobv8wg.fsf@linaro.org> User-agent: mu4e 0.9.19; emacs 25.2.3 From: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= To: Peter Maydell Cc: qemu-arm , QEMU Developers , "patches\@linaro.org" , Michael Davidsaver , Liviu Ionescu Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/9] armv7m: Rewrite NVIC to not use any GIC code In-reply-to: Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:51:03 +0000 Message-ID: <87bmu3v76w.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-TUID: cy5nYSAAGVPK Peter Maydell writes: > On 15 February 2017 at 14:14, Alex Bennée wrote: >> I guess it would be easier to remove the asserts if we had run test >> cases that explicitly exercised all this code. What are you currently >> running to test this code? > > The cover letter has a pointer to the tests I've been using > (plus the usual "run a random stellaris image"). Doh, teach me for not reading that. I shall snarf them now ;-) > > I think the benefit of the asserts is in warding off future > bugs; so I think they're worth keeping where we know something > should never happen but the code is complicated enough that > perhaps a future patch might put things in a state where the > impossible does happen. > > Also, number of assert()s is to some extent a coding style > issue, and in this patchset I'm really taking Michael's code > and doing a review/cleanup pass on it, so I've tried not to > do too much rework of the "well I wouldn't have put quite this > many asserts in" flavour. Sure no problem. > > thanks > -- PMM -- Alex Bennée From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37750) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ce0vG-0000hG-BC for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:51:11 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ce0vC-0004ZW-Ei for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:51:10 -0500 Received: from mail-wr0-x232.google.com ([2a00:1450:400c:c0c::232]:33734) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ce0vC-0004ZA-7J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 09:51:06 -0500 Received: by mail-wr0-x232.google.com with SMTP id i10so192777759wrb.0 for ; Wed, 15 Feb 2017 06:51:06 -0800 (PST) References: <1486065742-28639-1-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <1486065742-28639-4-git-send-email-peter.maydell@linaro.org> <87mvdnvcxx.fsf@linaro.org> <87inobv8wg.fsf@linaro.org> From: Alex =?utf-8?Q?Benn=C3=A9e?= In-reply-to: Date: Wed, 15 Feb 2017 14:51:03 +0000 Message-ID: <87bmu3v76w.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/9] armv7m: Rewrite NVIC to not use any GIC code List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: qemu-arm , QEMU Developers , "patches@linaro.org" , Michael Davidsaver , Liviu Ionescu Peter Maydell writes: > On 15 February 2017 at 14:14, Alex Bennée wrote: >> I guess it would be easier to remove the asserts if we had run test >> cases that explicitly exercised all this code. What are you currently >> running to test this code? > > The cover letter has a pointer to the tests I've been using > (plus the usual "run a random stellaris image"). Doh, teach me for not reading that. I shall snarf them now ;-) > > I think the benefit of the asserts is in warding off future > bugs; so I think they're worth keeping where we know something > should never happen but the code is complicated enough that > perhaps a future patch might put things in a state where the > impossible does happen. > > Also, number of assert()s is to some extent a coding style > issue, and in this patchset I'm really taking Michael's code > and doing a review/cleanup pass on it, so I've tried not to > do too much rework of the "well I wouldn't have put quite this > many asserts in" flavour. Sure no problem. > > thanks > -- PMM -- Alex Bennée