* Halil Pasic [2017-09-19 14:04:03 +0200]:
I have no problem with the rest parts of the discussion in this thread.
>
>
> On 09/19/2017 12:57 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > +static inline int ida_read_next_idaw(CcwDataStream *cds)
> > +{
> > +union {uint64_t fmt2; uint32_t fmt1; }
* Halil Pasic [2017-09-19 20:05:48 +0200]:
>
>
> On 09/19/2017 02:23 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > +{
> > +union {uint64_t fmt2; uint32_t fmt1; } idaw;
> ^
> Nit.
>
> >> Maybe checkpatch wanted it this way. My memori
On 09/19/2017 02:23 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> +{
> +union {uint64_t fmt2; uint32_t fmt1; } idaw;
^
Nit.
>> Maybe checkpatch wanted it this way. My memories are blurry.
> I'd just leave it like that, tbh.
Yes, if I
On 09/19/2017 03:46 PM, Pierre Morel wrote:
> On 19/09/2017 12:57, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:36:33 +0200
>> Halil Pasic wrote:
>>
>>> On 09/19/2017 11:48 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:50:05 +0800
Dong Jia Shi wrote:
> * Halil Pasic [
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:32:33 +0200
Halil Pasic wrote:
> On 09/19/2017 02:23 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:04:03 +0200
> > Halil Pasic wrote:
> >
> >> On 09/19/2017 12:57 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> >>> +static inline int ida_read_next_idaw(CcwDataStream *cds)
>
On 19/09/2017 12:57, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:36:33 +0200
Halil Pasic wrote:
On 09/19/2017 11:48 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:50:05 +0800
Dong Jia Shi wrote:
* Halil Pasic [2017-09-13 13:50:29 +0200]:
Let's add indirect data addressing support
On 09/19/2017 02:23 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:04:03 +0200
> Halil Pasic wrote:
>
>> On 09/19/2017 12:57 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
>>> +static inline int ida_read_next_idaw(CcwDataStream *cds)
>>> +{
>>> +union {uint64_t fmt2; uint32_t fmt1; } idaw;
>
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 14:04:03 +0200
Halil Pasic wrote:
> On 09/19/2017 12:57 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > +static inline int ida_read_next_idaw(CcwDataStream *cds)
> > +{
> > +union {uint64_t fmt2; uint32_t fmt1; } idaw;
> ^
> >
On 09/19/2017 12:57 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> +static inline int ida_read_next_idaw(CcwDataStream *cds)
> +{
> +union {uint64_t fmt2; uint32_t fmt1; } idaw;
^
Nit.
>> Maybe checkpatch wanted it this way. My memories
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 12:36:33 +0200
Halil Pasic wrote:
> On 09/19/2017 11:48 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> > On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:50:05 +0800
> > Dong Jia Shi wrote:
> >
> >> * Halil Pasic [2017-09-13 13:50:29 +0200]:
> >>
> >>> Let's add indirect data addressing support for our virtual chan
On 09/19/2017 11:48 AM, Cornelia Huck wrote:
> On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:50:05 +0800
> Dong Jia Shi wrote:
>
>> * Halil Pasic [2017-09-13 13:50:29 +0200]:
>>
>>> Let's add indirect data addressing support for our virtual channel
>>> subsystem. This implementation does no bother with any kind of
>
On Tue, 19 Sep 2017 13:50:05 +0800
Dong Jia Shi wrote:
> * Halil Pasic [2017-09-13 13:50:29 +0200]:
>
> > Let's add indirect data addressing support for our virtual channel
> > subsystem. This implementation does no bother with any kind of
> > prefetching. We simply step trough the IDAL on dema
* Halil Pasic [2017-09-13 13:50:29 +0200]:
> Let's add indirect data addressing support for our virtual channel
> subsystem. This implementation does no bother with any kind of
> prefetching. We simply step trough the IDAL on demand.
>
> Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic
> ---
> hw/s390x/css.c | 109
On Wed, 13 Sep 2017 13:50:29 +0200
Halil Pasic wrote:
> Let's add indirect data addressing support for our virtual channel
> subsystem. This implementation does no bother with any kind of
s/no/not/
> prefetching. We simply step trough the IDAL on demand.
s/trough/through/
>
> Signed-off-by:
Let's add indirect data addressing support for our virtual channel
subsystem. This implementation does no bother with any kind of
prefetching. We simply step trough the IDAL on demand.
Signed-off-by: Halil Pasic
---
hw/s390x/css.c | 109 -
15 matches
Mail list logo
