From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HTHLn-0000Us-3o
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:52:35 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1HTHLl-0000Qh-5j
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:52:34 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HTHLl-0000Qb-2K
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 07:52:33 -0500
Received: from phoenix.bawue.net ([193.7.176.60] helo=mail.bawue.net)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps
	(TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <ths@networkno.de>) id 1HTHKI-0006ib-Jp
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2007 08:51:02 -0400
Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2007 12:42:11 +0000
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] scsi patch
Message-ID: <20070319124211.GD7744@networkno.de>
References: <a20f395e0703100603j4f14ce33wa63f047a36354fd9@mail.gmail.com>
	<a20f395e0703140815q3c7a5608l6bc2d282c75e09a7@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <a20f395e0703140815q3c7a5608l6bc2d282c75e09a7@mail.gmail.com>
From: Thiemo Seufer <ths@networkno.de>
Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: ????????? <cywang.eda@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

????????? wrote:
> --- ../../tmp/qemu-0.9.0/hw/lsi53c895a.c        2007-02-06 07:01:
> 54.000000000 +0800
> +++ lsi53c895a.c        2007-03-08 20:50:03.094098835 +0800
> @@ -251,7 +251,7 @@
>     uint32_t ia;
>     uint32_t sbc;
>     uint32_t csbc;
> -    uint32_t scratch[13]; /* SCRATCHA-SCRATCHR */
> +    uint32_t scratch[18]; /* SCRATCHA-SCRATCHR */

This still looks inconsistent. SCRATCHR suggests 18 available
registers, but the code below handles only 17 scratch registers.

Could you check what's the right thing there?
Otherwise the patch looks good.


Thiemo