From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:43396 "EHLO mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1727418AbfLBQw4 (ORCPT ); Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:52:56 -0500 Received: from pps.filterd (m0127361.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.42/8.16.0.42) with SMTP id xB2GmDmf091880 for ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 11:52:54 -0500 Received: from e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.97]) by mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 2wkm46sa3g-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Mon, 02 Dec 2019 11:52:53 -0500 Received: from localhost by e06smtp01.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Mon, 2 Dec 2019 16:52:51 -0000 Subject: Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH v2 2/9] s390x: Define the PSW bits References: <1574945167-29677-1-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <1574945167-29677-3-git-send-email-pmorel@linux.ibm.com> <489b43a4-6f71-71bf-b936-e4c94e52387b@redhat.com> <7daddc03-35ec-f376-c80a-a849f9e11714@linux.ibm.com> <3ce5d72d-ed1d-c689-a13f-6f409d085df7@redhat.com> From: Pierre Morel Date: Mon, 2 Dec 2019 17:52:48 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <3ce5d72d-ed1d-c689-a13f-6f409d085df7@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252; format=flowed Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Message-Id: <2f1383bf-15f0-b2f5-96d4-a4a443f33a96@linux.ibm.com> Sender: linux-s390-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: David Hildenbrand , Janosch Frank , kvm@vger.kernel.org Cc: linux-s390@vger.kernel.org, thuth@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com On 2019-12-02 12:17, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 02.12.19 12:11, Janosch Frank wrote: >> On 11/28/19 3:36 PM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >>> On 28.11.19 13:46, Pierre Morel wrote: >>>> Let's define the PSW bits explicitly, it will clarify their >>>> usage. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Pierre Morel >>>> --- >>>> lib/s390x/asm/arch_bits.h | 20 ++++++++++++++++++++ >>>> lib/s390x/asm/arch_def.h | 6 ++---- >>> >>> I'm sorry, but I don't really see a reason to move these 4/5 defines to >>> a separate header. Can you just keep them in arch_def.h and extend? >>> >>> (none of your other patches touch arch_bits.h - and it is somewhat a >>> weird name. Where to put something new: arch_def.h or arch_bits.h? I >>> would have understood "psw.h", but even that, I don't consider necessary) >>> >> >> On a related note: >> I'd still like to split up the file soonish, maybe moving the functions >> into a new file? >> >> @Thomas/David: What's your opinion on that? > > Sure, as long as the file header is not longer as its actual content :D > No problem for me. What should the file header be? -- Pierre Morel IBM Lab Boeblingen