From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:36812) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QBZC8-0006Ax-6o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 17:07:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QBZC6-00010s-TH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 17:07:48 -0400 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.186]:53185) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1QBZC6-00010i-FS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 17 Apr 2011 17:07:46 -0400 Message-ID: <4DAB569A.2020604@mail.berlios.de> Date: Sun, 17 Apr 2011 23:07:38 +0200 From: Stefan Weil MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1302727085-14713-1-git-send-email-weil@mail.berlios.de> <4DA741D8.3020306@mail.berlios.de> <20110417182753.GA15672@volta.aurel32.net> In-Reply-To: <20110417182753.GA15672@volta.aurel32.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Remove unneeded function parameter from gen_pc_load List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Aurelien Jarno Cc: Peter Maydell , QEMU Developers Am 17.04.2011 20:27, schrieb Aurelien Jarno: > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 08:50:00PM +0200, Stefan Weil wrote: >> Am 13.04.2011 23:05, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>> On 13 April 2011 21:38, Stefan Weil wrote: >>>> gen_pc_load was introduced in commit >>>> d2856f1ad4c259e5766847c49acbb4e390731bd4. >>>> The only reason for parameter searched_pc was >>>> a debug statement in target-i386/translate.c. >>>> >>>> Remove searched_pc from the debug statement >>>> and from the parameter list of gen_pc_load. >>> >>> No issues with the meat of the patch, but if we're going to >>> change all the callers and implementations of this anyway, >>> is there any appetite for giving it a more appropriate name? >>> It doesn't generate any code, it affects more than just the >>> pc, and it doesn't do a load... >>> >>> restore_state_to_opc() ? set_env_for_opc() ? >>> >>> -- PMM >> >> >> What about cpu_restore_pc()? That's not always the whole truth, >> but it's always the main action done in function n.n. which currently >> is called gen_pc_load. >> >> Or cpu_restore_helper()? Helper is very generic - it always fits. >> >> Aurelien, please feel free to choose a name which suits bests. >> I don't mind if you simply patch my patch, create a new one >> or tell me which name should go into a new version of the patch >> so I can send it. >> > > As Peter said, the function is doing more than simply restoring the > pc. I am fine with the name he proposed, I think restore_state_to_opc() > is a bit better. Ok, so I'll send a new patch which also replaces gen_pc_load by restore_state_to_op. The new function name is longer than the old one, but it was possible to remove one more function parameter, therefore line lengths don't increase. avoid over