From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K1MtP-0002kF-SZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2008 10:44:43 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1K1MtP-0002jo-BS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2008 10:44:43 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=40853 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1K1MtP-0002jd-8K for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2008 10:44:43 -0400 Received: from yw-out-1718.google.com ([74.125.46.152]:9592) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1K1MtP-0003Gg-C9 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 28 May 2008 10:44:43 -0400 Received: by yw-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id 6so1724703ywa.82 for ; Wed, 28 May 2008 07:44:24 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <5d6222a80805280744l54f4e2c7lb9b1ea77a844eab3@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 11:44:23 -0300 From: "Glauber Costa" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/6] Simplify cpu_exec - spin 3 In-Reply-To: <200805281525.11789.paul@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <1211983296-27395-1-git-send-email-gcosta@redhat.com> <200805281525.11789.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paul Brook Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, kvm@vger.kernel.org, Glauber Costa On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:25 AM, Paul Brook wrote: > On Wednesday 28 May 2008, Glauber Costa wrote: >> Hi guys, >> >> here's a new spin of the patches I sent yesterday. It basically merges the >> comments I received, and adapts to the current state of the svn tree. >> Also, as Fabrice said multiple times inlining would be better, I'm taking >> a new approach, and instead of defining functions, I'm defining empty >> macros (for the general case), and archictectures that need it can then >> override. It results in substantially less code. > > I'm not so sure this is a good idea. IMHO using macros to implement functions > is ugly. That's what inline functions are for :-) > > Providing a default implementation is also a fairly suspect idea. When adding > a new target I like that we generate an error error when I forget to populate > all of the target specific routines. The same applies when making changes to > generic code, you're forced to go through every target and update them. ok. If all the rest is fine, I can then switch back to the old model and resend it. > Paul > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe kvm" in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html > -- Glauber Costa. "Free as in Freedom" http://glommer.net "The less confident you are, the more serious you have to act."