From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47872) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eoAGk-0001J3-7o for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:55:51 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eoAGf-0003oj-A5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 20 Feb 2018 10:55:50 -0500 References: <20180220150713.6056-1-pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20180220165323.02898d8a.cohuck@redhat.com> From: David Hildenbrand Message-ID: Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:55:42 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20180220165323.02898d8a.cohuck@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [qemu-s390x] [PATCH 1/1] 390x/cpumodel: document S390FeatDef.bit not applicable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Cornelia Huck , Halil Pasic Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Alexander Graf , Christian Borntraeger , qemu-s390x@nongnu.org, Richard Henderson On 20.02.2018 16:53, Cornelia Huck wrote: > On Tue, 20 Feb 2018 16:07:13 +0100 > Halil Pasic wrote: > >> The 'bit' field of the 'S390FeatDef' structure is not applicable to all >> it's instances. Currently a this field is not applicable, and remains > > s/it's/its/ > > s/a this/this/ > >> unused, iff the feature is of type S390_FEAT_TYPE_MISC. Having the value 0 >> specified for multiple such feature definition was a little confusing, >> as it's a perfectly legit bit value, and as usually the value of the bit >> field is ought to be unique for each feature. >> >> Let's document this, and hopefully reduce the potential for confusion. >> >> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic >> --- >> >> Hi! >> >> This may be an overkill. A comment where the misc features >> are defined would do to, but I think this is nicer. So >> I decided to try it with this approach first. > > Is there likely to be anything else than FEAT_MISC _not_ using .bit? If > not, would it be better to at a comment to the FEAT_MISC definition? Doubt it right now. I would sign the "overkill" part :) -- Thanks, David / dhildenb