> > Right. With this do you acknowledge that v5 (definitely overwritten > approach) > > is ok? > > I think I'm starting to understand your logic of v5. You write > fetch_failed into *inst unswapped if the fetch failed.
"v5 - don't swap when load fails" :) > > I think that's ok, but I definitely do not like the code flow - it's too > hard to understand at a glimpse. Just rewrite it to swab at local > variable level, preferably with if()s and comments what this is about and > have a single unconditional *inst = fetched_inst; at the end of the > function. I will incorporate these change requests into v6. Thanks, -Mike _______________________________________________ Linuxppc-dev mailing list Linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org https://lists.ozlabs.org/listinfo/linuxppc-dev
