On 6 June 2016 at 13:00, Paolo Bonzini <pbonz...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
>
> On 31/05/2016 13:36, P J P wrote:
>> + if ((s->rregs[ESP_RSTAT] & STAT_PIO_MASK) == 0) {
>> + /* Data out. */
>> + qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP, "esp: PIO data read not
>> implemented\n");
>> + s->rregs[ESP_FIFO] = 0;
>> + esp_raise_irq(s);
>> + } else if (s->ti_rptr < s->ti_wptr) {
>> s->ti_size--;
>> - if ((s->rregs[ESP_RSTAT] & STAT_PIO_MASK) == 0) {
>> - /* Data out. */
>> - qemu_log_mask(LOG_UNIMP,
>> - "esp: PIO data read not implemented\n");
>> - s->rregs[ESP_FIFO] = 0;
>> - } else {
>> - s->rregs[ESP_FIFO] = s->ti_buf[s->ti_rptr++];
>> - }
>> + s->rregs[ESP_FIFO] = s->ti_buf[s->ti_rptr++];
>> esp_raise_irq(s);
>> }
>> if (s->ti_size == 0) {
>
> Shouldn't this become a "s->ti_rptr == s->ti_wptr" too?
It would probably be helpful to document what the intended invariant
relating ti_rptr, ti_wptr and ti_size is as well.
thanks
-- PMM
