From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:55737)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1TTPSa-0005iT-Np
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:59:21 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1TTPSZ-0003w5-S2
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:59:20 -0400
Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:56079 helo=mx2.suse.de)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <afaerber@suse.de>) id 1TTPSZ-0003vw-LK
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 30 Oct 2012 23:59:19 -0400
Message-ID: <5090A212.4020001@suse.de>
Date: Wed, 31 Oct 2012 04:59:14 +0100
From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <cover.1351436501.git.blauwirbel@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <cover.1351436501.git.blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] cpu_single_env cleanup
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

Am 28.10.2012 16:03, schrieb Blue Swirl:
> In some cases it's pretty easy to avoid using global
> cpu_single_env since a local version is available.
>=20
> Blue Swirl (5):
>   disas: avoid using cpu_single_env
>   kvm: avoid using cpu_single_env
>   target-unicore32: avoid using cpu_single_env
>   target-xtensa: avoid using cpu_single_env
>   target-i386: avoid using cpu_single_env

Each of these has been reviewed by at least a second pair of eyes now. I
recently stumbled over cpu_single_env as an obstacle to actually using
CPUState somewhere, so I'm happy about removing some occurrences.

Have you considered using FooCPU arguments in target-specific code
(e.g., last three) and decided against it?

I checked that they build bisectably and still apply on top of my PULL;
you being a committer, are you planning to apply these directly, or
should I queue them for the next CPU pull and fix the messages myself?

Regards,
Andreas

--=20
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=F6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=FCrnbe=
rg