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 <cfont...@suse.de>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Cho, Yu-Chen <a...@suse.com>
> > > > Acked-by: Cornelia Huck <coh...@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.
Cheers,
AL
