* Halil Pasic <pa...@linux.vnet.ibm.com> [2017-09-06 00:30:58 +0200]:
[...] > > > >> But I guess, I was afraid of somebody blaming me for this > >> comment (such TODOs in production code are a bit strange -- what > >> does it mean: we did not bother to figure it out?). > > > > For one, the TODO is preexisting... and we really should remember to > > figure out if there's something better rather than just drop the > > comment. > > > > (And I sure hope nobody is using vfio-ccw in production yet...) > > > Since blame says the TODO has been around since 2017-05-17 > let me have a critical look at it. > > At a first glance I would say addressing exception for SSCH > is not what we want: the only possibility I see for address > exception for SSCH is due to the ORB address. But if that's > the case we will never reach the code in question. Agree. > So I suppose we can do better. As the comment said, I'm (still) in the state of 'wondering'. > > Adding Ren. @Ren: Do you agree with my analysis. If you do, > I could come up with a proposal what to do -- after some reading. If you have a better idea, and time, why not? ;) > > Regards, > Halil -- Dong Jia Shi
