From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LSuYA-0001ur-CJ
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:40:54 -0500
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1LSuY7-0001ua-V8
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:40:53 -0500
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=58579 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1LSuY7-0001uX-SS
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:40:51 -0500
Received: from mx20.gnu.org ([199.232.41.8]:14732)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32)
	(Exim 4.60) (envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>)
	id 1LSuY7-0008WB-FG
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:40:51 -0500
Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4])
	by mx20.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <paul@codesourcery.com>) id 1LSuY6-0006kC-Bh
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 30 Jan 2009 09:40:50 -0500
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] PL181 write problem
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2009 14:40:46 +0000
References: <4981F759.2040803@rt-labs.com>
In-Reply-To: <4981F759.2040803@rt-labs.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline
Message-Id: <200901301440.47265.paul@codesourcery.com>
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: qemu-devel@nongnu.org
Cc: Hans-Erik Floryd <hans-erik.floryd@rt-labs.com>

> The following patch fixes this by writing all four bytes before checking
> fifo_len.

I think your analysis is probably correct, but I'm not so keen on your 
solution. You've got redundant loops/conditions.

Paul