On Tue Jun 13, 2023 at 11:33 PM AEST, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > Missing review: 1, 7, 8 > > Since v2: > - Rebased > - Added R-b tags > - Rework i386_tr_init_disas_context() patch (Richard) > - Dropped RFC prefix > > This series aims to clarify the CONFIG_[USER|SYSTEM] vs CONFIG_SOFTMMU > confusion [*] by using explicit definitions, removing mentions of > CONFIG_SOFTMMU in non-TCG code. > > We replace CONFIG_SOFTMMU by !CONFIG_USER_ONLY in C code and > by CONFIG_SYSTEM_ONLY in meson config files.
I like the change in general, SOFTMMU does not read well (and is not exactly correct for system code as pointed out). Sorry for chiming in late and if I missed it, but was there a reason not to define a complementary CONFIG_SYSTEM so system code does not have to test !CONFIG_USER_ONLY and invert a bunch of the tests? Actually I thought you would have CONFIG_SYSTEM and CONFIG_USER options and the _ONLY variants could be derivative for convenience, but I'm probably missing some detail. Thanks, Nick
