| Message ID | 134bcf2e2c0bb9160aa822ddfbc46d9bd51c4305.1505512474.git.alistair.francis@xilinx.com |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
| Series | [v2,1/1] target/xtensa: Use the pre-defined MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED macro | expand |
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@xilinx.com> wrote: > Instead of using the hardcoded (MemTxAttrs){0} for no memory attributes > let's use the already defined MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED macro instead. > > This is technically a change of behaviour as MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED sets > the unspecified field to 1, but it doesn't look like anything is > checking this field. > > Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@xilinx.com> > --- > V2: > - Update commit message to indicate the change in behaviour > > target/xtensa/op_helper.c | 4 ++-- > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) Acked-by: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com>
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Alistair Francis > <alistair.francis@xilinx.com> wrote: >> Instead of using the hardcoded (MemTxAttrs){0} for no memory attributes >> let's use the already defined MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED macro instead. >> >> This is technically a change of behaviour as MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED sets >> the unspecified field to 1, but it doesn't look like anything is >> checking this field. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@xilinx.com> >> --- >> V2: >> - Update commit message to indicate the change in behaviour >> >> target/xtensa/op_helper.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Acked-by: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> Thanks Max, Are you going to take this Max? Otherwise can it go through Peter? Thanks, Alistair > > -- > Thanks. > -- Max
On Mon, Sep 18, 2017 at 11:31 AM, Alistair Francis
<alistair.francis@xilinx.com> wrote:
> Are you going to take this Max? Otherwise can it go through Peter?
It can probably go through the qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, or directly
through Peter.
On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 3:37 PM, Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> wrote: > On Fri, Sep 15, 2017 at 2:56 PM, Alistair Francis > <alistair.francis@xilinx.com> wrote: >> Instead of using the hardcoded (MemTxAttrs){0} for no memory attributes >> let's use the already defined MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED macro instead. >> >> This is technically a change of behaviour as MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED sets >> the unspecified field to 1, but it doesn't look like anything is >> checking this field. >> >> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@xilinx.com> >> --- >> V2: >> - Update commit message to indicate the change in behaviour >> >> target/xtensa/op_helper.c | 4 ++-- >> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > Acked-by: Max Filippov <jcmvbkbc@gmail.com> + QEMU trivial, can this go through you? Thanks, Alistair > > -- > Thanks. > -- Max
16.09.2017 00:56, Alistair Francis wrote: > Instead of using the hardcoded (MemTxAttrs){0} for no memory attributes > let's use the already defined MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED macro instead. > > This is technically a change of behaviour as MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED sets > the unspecified field to 1, but it doesn't look like anything is > checking this field. Applied to -trivial, thanks! /mjt
diff --git a/target/xtensa/op_helper.c b/target/xtensa/op_helper.c index 519fbeddd6..3d990c0caa 100644 --- a/target/xtensa/op_helper.c +++ b/target/xtensa/op_helper.c @@ -1025,11 +1025,11 @@ void HELPER(ule_s)(CPUXtensaState *env, uint32_t br, float32 a, float32 b) uint32_t HELPER(rer)(CPUXtensaState *env, uint32_t addr) { return address_space_ldl(env->address_space_er, addr, - (MemTxAttrs){0}, NULL); + MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED, NULL); } void HELPER(wer)(CPUXtensaState *env, uint32_t data, uint32_t addr) { address_space_stl(env->address_space_er, addr, data, - (MemTxAttrs){0}, NULL); + MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED, NULL); }
Instead of using the hardcoded (MemTxAttrs){0} for no memory attributes let's use the already defined MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED macro instead. This is technically a change of behaviour as MEMTXATTRS_UNSPECIFIED sets the unspecified field to 1, but it doesn't look like anything is checking this field. Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@xilinx.com> --- V2: - Update commit message to indicate the change in behaviour target/xtensa/op_helper.c | 4 ++-- 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-)