On 06/07/2021 10.47, Al Cho wrote:
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.
FWIW, if you don't like cpu-state.c, I'd vote for putting the dump()
function into cpu-dump.c and put the other functions into cpu.c instead.
Thomas
