From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:37562)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1S0BdD-0004gV-V1
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:49:25 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1S0Bd8-0006IW-AM
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:49:15 -0500
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46069 helo=mx2.suse.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1S0Bd8-0006IR-5l
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 22 Feb 2012 07:49:10 -0500
Message-ID: <4F44E444.6000608@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2012 13:49:08 +0100
From: =?UTF-8?B?QW5kcmVhcyBGw6RyYmVy?= <afaerber@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <1329905754-11873-1-git-send-email-i.mitsyanko@samsung.com>
	<CAFEAcA9+7mvx7saRbJ4ygSExi4DT4ykz-r=FLEtxEa5zvEyJvw@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFEAcA9+7mvx7saRbJ4ygSExi4DT4ykz-r=FLEtxEa5zvEyJvw@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] VMState cleanups
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: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Cc: Igor Mitsyanko <i.mitsyanko@samsung.com>, e.voevodin@samsung.com, quintela@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kyungmin.park@samsung.com, d.solodkiy@samsung.com, m.kozlov@samsung.com

Am 22.02.2012 12:26, schrieb Peter Maydell:
> So if we apply patches 1-3 (which all look plausible) then the only
> remaining user of VMSTATE_UINTTL is target-i386/machine.c as far as
> I can see.
>=20
> This leaves me wondering if we shouldn't just put it actually in
> target-i386/machine.c as a convenience macro for that specific CPU
> to avoid having to have more #ifdef TARGET_X86_64s.

Nack. I don't see the connection between target_ulong and TARGET_X86_64.
Just because that becomes the only user does not mean target_ulong is an
x86-specific concept.

> (I note that
> the machine.c code is already pretty inconsistent, eg lstar and
> cstar are defined as target_ulong and saved with VMSTATE_UINT64.)

Same for TCGv. We also have quite a few mixes of int and (U)INT32.

Andreas

>=20
> Basically VMSTATE_UINTTL seems like a bit of a dangerous thing to
> leave lying around as there aren't really very many use cases
> for it...

--=20
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=C3=BCrnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=C3=B6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=C3=BC=
rnberg