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