From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=45637 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OJ6SX-00068F-Cr
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 May 2010 10:59:22 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <agraf@suse.de>) id 1OJ6SW-0003vJ-DX
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 May 2010 10:59:21 -0400
Received: from cantor.suse.de ([195.135.220.2]:48108 helo=mx1.suse.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <agraf@suse.de>) id 1OJ6SW-0003ux-8X
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 31 May 2010 10:59:20 -0400
Message-ID: <4C03CEC5.5010203@suse.de>
Date: Mon, 31 May 2010 16:59:17 +0200
From: Alexander Graf <agraf@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-ppc: remove useless line
References: <1275073245-20352-1-git-send-email-thomas_ml@monjalon.net>
	<E68B33FF-5A52-480F-A039-8FDF0C175F30@web.de>
	<77661091-3C96-4490-80A2-44C5EAD90B54@suse.de>
	<201005311511.13701.thomas_ml@monjalon.net>
In-Reply-To: <201005311511.13701.thomas_ml@monjalon.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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.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: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Thomas Monjalon <thomas_ml@monjalon.net>
Cc: =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= <andreas.faerber@web.de>, qemu-devel Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

Thomas Monjalon wrote:
> Alexander Graf wrote:
>   
>> Thomas, have you verified that it still boots a ppc64 guest?
>>     
>
> No, but I don't see any specific link between ppc64 and this change.
>
> This is the current (pseudo)code:
>     LE = 0
>     if ILE == 1
>         LE = 1
>     else
>         LE = 0
> In all cases, LE will be overwritten after the first line.
>
> I cannot see any justification to keep the first line.
>   

I agree.

Alex