From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39030) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dZhJy-0000A5-GK for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:39:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dZhJv-0000nY-FV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:39:06 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:33528) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1dZhJv-0000nI-8b for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Jul 2017 13:39:03 -0400 References: <20170721125609.11117-1-david@redhat.com> <20170721125609.11117-5-david@redhat.com> From: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: <41378209-643c-b76a-4f7d-c3843f3fb95e@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 24 Jul 2017 19:38:59 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 4/6] target/s390x: move wrap_address to cpu.h List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Richard Henderson , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Aurelien Jarno , thuth@redhat.com, cohuck@redhat.com, borntraeger@de.ibm.com On 24.07.2017 06:40, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 07/21/2017 05:56 AM, David Hildenbrand wrote: >> Signed-off-by: David Hildenbrand >> --- >> target/s390x/cpu.h | 14 ++++++++++++++ >> target/s390x/mem_helper.c | 14 -------------- >> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > Reviewed-by: Richard Henderson > > Although another header, private to the helpers, might be better... > Question is if we should have a new header for stuff really only used locally in target/s390x - in contrast to say cpu.h, which is included from various other places. So not only a header for helpers, but also used for e.g. kvm.c. This header could e.g. be called cpu_helper.h and would not included in cpu.h Opinions? -- Thanks, David