From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org [209.51.188.17]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 037A4CD13CF for ; Mon, 2 Sep 2024 12:08:55 +0000 (UTC) Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sl5qh-0003W9-D4; Mon, 02 Sep 2024 08:07:59 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sl5qe-0003UQ-NG; Mon, 02 Sep 2024 08:07:56 -0400 Received: from mgamail.intel.com ([198.175.65.10]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1sl5qc-0005Lc-As; Mon, 02 Sep 2024 08:07:56 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=intel.com; i=@intel.com; q=dns/txt; s=Intel; t=1725278874; x=1756814874; h=date:from:to:cc:subject:message-id:references: mime-version:in-reply-to; bh=qgr1sU7wkJHclCHETFO8vyp0MlBwWnW+iyMOkHg9Fkk=; b=hENLyiwlK904calFsce5LwbM7Ubc8iepw7GriLluG3Wzd4OYxv6USiBr zU8pCew5pINv0c08AjkXxl+AaG/VMe7OEadNXfRhZucaTCgupMS/573Fd XPVLxz6q4HS7GDrzulbTsodGYc7vgBvNJk4NQ9Zgmy4TofdFcUIX8wQrx vJ0P7n+lKl024OAH0iaqrblJPlYjZ3cj+7D9ZlbtJtNDAGuph9SkP8o15 HTGYMub/6SB0bLefi6LvCqpgZuMnoNNaMUrSWzXrFTQvaeKeYJX/9DrcX zQKQx9KWy34RfTuJbQTMC9rGoDk8mqN6Bz0id/nMgIb9l1WyzK7+9PWLC Q==; X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: 07UTZtAOTzeFJ7hroD6INA== X-CSE-MsgGUID: h/cuJ6LbRsWbYAjJBdfAGA== X-IronPort-AV: E=McAfee;i="6700,10204,11182"; a="41333119" X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.10,195,1719903600"; d="scan'208";a="41333119" Received: from fmviesa001.fm.intel.com ([10.60.135.141]) by orvoesa102.jf.intel.com with ESMTP/TLS/ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384; 02 Sep 2024 05:07:49 -0700 X-CSE-ConnectionGUID: XhA4ac0RSvugfTevNzWVkQ== X-CSE-MsgGUID: O8z3vyWmQb2M+INS6gcYvA== X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="6.10,195,1719903600"; d="scan'208";a="95405433" Received: from liuzhao-optiplex-7080.sh.intel.com (HELO localhost) ([10.239.160.36]) by fmviesa001.fm.intel.com with ESMTP; 02 Sep 2024 05:07:44 -0700 Date: Mon, 2 Sep 2024 20:23:43 +0800 From: Zhao Liu To: Alireza Sanaee Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, zhenyu.z.wang@intel.com, dapeng1.mi@linux.intel.com, yongwei.ma@intel.com, armbru@redhat.com, farman@linux.ibm.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org, mst@redhat.com, anisinha@redhat.com, shannon.zhaosl@gmail.com, imammedo@redhat.com, mtosatti@redhat.com, berrange@redhat.com, richard.henderson@linaro.org, linuxarm@huwei.com, shameerali.kolothum.thodi@huawei.com, Jonathan.Cameron@huawei.com, jiangkunkun@huawei.com, zhao1.liu@intel.com Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 0/2] Specifying cache topology on ARM Message-ID: References: <20240823125446.721-1-alireza.sanaee@huawei.com> <20240902112519.00005b67@huawei.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20240902112519.00005b67@huawei.com> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=198.175.65.10; envelope-from=zhao1.liu@intel.com; helo=mgamail.intel.com X-Spam_score_int: -44 X-Spam_score: -4.5 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.5 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIMWL_WL_HIGH=-0.142, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_SAFE_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-BeenThere: qemu-devel@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-devel-bounces+qemu-devel=archiver.kernel.org@nongnu.org On Mon, Sep 02, 2024 at 11:25:19AM +0100, Alireza Sanaee wrote: > > Hi Zhao, > > Yes, please keep me CCed. > > One thing that I noticed, sometimes, since you were going down the > Intel path, some variables couldn't be NULL. But when I was gonna go > down to ARM path, I faced some scenarios where I ended up with > some uninit vars which is still OK but could have been avoided. Ah I didn't get your point very clearly. Could you please figure out those places on my patches? Then I can fix them in my next version. :) Thanks, Zhao > Looking forward to the next revision. > > Alireza