On Mon, 14 May 2018 16:44:29 +0200 Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> On 05/14/2018 04:00 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Mon, 14 May 2018 15:37:17 +0200 > > Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > > > >> On 05/14/2018 01:55 PM, Cornelia Huck wrote: > >>> On Wed, 9 May 2018 19:36:47 +0200 > >>> Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.ibm.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> + /* > >>>> + * 2k byte block IDAWs (fmt1 or fmt2) are not yet > >>>> supported. > >>>> + * There are however CPs that don't use IDA at all, and > >>>> can > >>>> + * benefit from not failing until failure is eminent. > >>> > >>> What about: > >>> > >>> "As we don't want to fail direct addressing even if the orb specified > >>> one of the unsupported formats, we defer checking for IDAWs in > >>> unsupported formats to here." > >> > >> Was the second sentence only confusing because of CP? I'm not perfectly > >> satisfied with your version either: > >> * 'fail direct addressing even if the orb specified one of the unsupported > >> formats' > >> I wanted to say: 'hey it does not matter what format for IDA the orb > >> implies > >> if the channel program does not use any IDA at all'. That could be > >> paraphrased > >> as channel programs using direct addressing exclusively. But failing > >> the direct > >> addressing does not fit for me. > > > > But that's effectively what happens now, no? We reject the orb out of > > hand due to unsupported flags that do not have any relevance for the > > channel program in that case. > > Yes, that's what happens now, except that we make the whole channel program > fail, > and not the direct addressing. But the comment should describe what happens > with the patch applied. Even more, it should describe _why_ it is done that way (the reason being "we don't want to fail..."). That's where I've been coming from. > >>> The patch looks sane, I have only issues with the description/comments. > >>> > >> > >> Thanks for having a look. Please give me short feedback about the one > >> open point and I will respin with the requested changes. > > > > Does anybody else have feedback? > > > > Will wait a day or so. Dong Jia and Jason have already seen the patch, and > they only complained about the text. Since that spin was mainly for the > tested-by tags, and I stated that any substantial discussion should happen > upstream, I ignored those complaints. > > So yes I will wait a bit so everybody can chime in. Sounds good.
