From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:56533)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Paul_Brook@mentor.com>) id 1REjJd-0004ow-FP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:04:54 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <Paul_Brook@mentor.com>) id 1REjJX-0003py-KY
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Oct 2011 11:04:53 -0400
From: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Date: Fri, 14 Oct 2011 16:04:40 +0100
References: <CAKUHwZpxH2vUBb9Y_R0uPCMvPhcpNB=yJJFdmJFWfmtbG85_Nw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAKUHwZpxH2vUBb9Y_R0uPCMvPhcpNB=yJJFdmJFWfmtbG85_Nw@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201110141604.40963.paul@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] ARM GIC and CPU state saving/loading fix
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Dmitry Koshelev <karaghiozis@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org

> Fixes two trivial indices errors.

No.

You're doing two much in a single patch. While both happen to be bug in the 
save/restore code involving arrays, these are not two instances of the same 
bug.  The justification for each change is completely different.

Even if each change was obviously correct, I believe putting them together 
into a single commit makes the result non-trivial.   The fact your patch 
introduces a bug strongly suggests it shouldn't have been considered trivial 
to start with.

> @@ -53,7 +53,7 @@ void cpu_save(QEMUFile *f, void *opaque)
>      if (arm_feature(env, ARM_FEATURE_VFP)) {
> -        for (i = 0;  i < 16; i++) {
> +        for (i = 16;  i < 32; i++) {
>              CPU_DoubleU u;
>              u.d = env->vfp.regs[i];

I'm pretty sure this is wrong.

Paul