Re: [RESEND PATCH 1/7] target/arm/machine: Improve traces on register mismatch during migration

[Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com>]

On 11/13/25 4:01 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Thu, 13 Nov 2025 at 14:48, Cornelia Huck <cohuck@redhat.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Nov 13 2025, Eric Auger <eric.auger@redhat.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> +    #define MAX_CPREG_VMSTATE_ANOMALIES 10
>>>>> +    uint64_t cpreg_vmstate_missing_indexes[MAX_CPREG_VMSTATE_ANOMALIES];
>>>>> +    int32_t cpreg_vmstate_missing_indexes_array_len;
>>>>> +    uint64_t cpreg_vmstate_unexpected_indexes[MAX_CPREG_VMSTATE_ANOMALIES];
>>>>> +    int32_t cpreg_vmstate_unexpected_indexes_array_len;
>>>> "indices"?
>>> Originally we had
>>>    uint64_t *cpreg_vmstate_indexes;
>>> so I reused the same terminology
>>>
>>> As a non native english speaker I don't know if the usage is wrong. I
>>> thought some references on the net though
>> Not a native English speaker, either; wiktionary says both are valid, so
>> probably a matter of taste.
> Mmm. I tend to go with "indexes" as being clearer (especially
> for non-native speakers) than "indices". Within QEMU sources
> there are twice as many "indexes" as "indices".
OK thanks. I will keep it.

Eric
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>