Re: [RFC v6 08/13] target/s390x: split cpu-dump from helper.c

[Thomas Huth <thuth@redhat.com>]

On 06/07/2021 10.47, Al Cho wrote:
> On Mon, 2021-07-05 at 08:25 +0200, Claudio Fontana wrote:
>> On 7/2/21 9:25 AM, Al Cho wrote:
>>> On Thu, 2021-07-01 at 14:35 +0200, Thomas Huth wrote:
>>>> On 29/06/2021 16.19, Cho, Yu-Chen wrote:
>>>>> Splitting this functionality also allows us to make helper.c
>>>>> sysemu-
>>>>> only.
>>>>>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Claudio Fontana <cfontana@suse.de>
>>>>> Signed-off-by: Cho, Yu-Chen <acho@suse.com>
>>>>> Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com>
>>>>> ---
>>>>>    target/s390x/cpu-dump.c  | 176
>>>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>>>
>>>> Apart from the dump() function, the other functions here are are
>>>> used
>>>> in
>>>> other contexts, too, so maybe the name is not very appropriate
>>>> here...
>>>> What
>>>> about naming it "cpu-state.c" instead? Or include the functions
>>>> in
>>>> cpu.c
>>>> directly?
>>>>
>>>
>>> ok, I think naming it "cpu-state.c" would make more sense.
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>>              AL
>>>
>>
>> For context, cpu-dump.c mimics how this is done on x86,
>>
>> so rather than coming up with creative new names for each
>> architecture,
> 
> I think Claudio is right, I didn't recognize it before. sorry.
> 
>> I'd rather either put the code into cpu.c, or just keep the existing
>> "cpu-dump.c" as in the initially proposed patch, which looks like the
>> best option to me.
>>
> 
> For me just keep the existing "cpu-dump.c" as in the initially proposed
> patch would be the better one option.
> But it's also good to me if we keep the dump() function in cpu-dump.c
> and put other functions into cpu.c.

FWIW, if you don't like cpu-state.c, I'd vote for putting the dump() 
function into cpu-dump.c and put the other functions into cpu.c instead.

  Thomas