From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48015) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1br6cc-0003rS-Ex for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2016 13:01:47 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1br6cW-0002yR-Ex for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2016 13:01:45 -0400 Received: from mail-pf0-x22f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c00::22f]:33231) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1br6cW-0002xk-07 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 03 Oct 2016 13:01:40 -0400 Received: by mail-pf0-x22f.google.com with SMTP id 190so18753546pfv.0 for ; Mon, 03 Oct 2016 10:01:39 -0700 (PDT) References: <1474047287-145701-1-git-send-email-thomas.hanson@linaro.org> <1474047287-145701-4-git-send-email-thomas.hanson@linaro.org> <57EEEB2D.7010100@linaro.org> From: Tom Hanson Message-ID: <57F28ED1.4020506@linaro.org> Date: Mon, 3 Oct 2016 11:01:05 -0600 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 3/3] target-arm: Comments to mark location of pending work for 56 bit addresses List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers , Grant Likely On 09/30/2016 05:24 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> 3 comments added in same file to identify cases in a switch. >>> >>> This should be a separate patch, because it is unrelated to the >>> tagged address stuff. >> >> As part of that same conversation you suggested adding these >> comments rather than making the changes: >> If we can assert, or failing that have a comment in the place >> that would be modified anyway for 56 bit addresses then that >> ought to catch the future case I think. > > Yes, I still think this. What does it have to do with adding > "SVC", "HVC", etc comments to the switch cases? Those have > nothing to do with tagged addresses or 56 bit VAs, and should > not be in this patch (though I don't object to them inherently). > > thanks > -- PMM Sorry, moving too fast and didn't look at which comments you were referring to. I'll drop them. -Tom