On Sun, 21 Apr 2019 at 09:03, Shahab Vahedi <shahab.vah...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Hi Peter, > > On Sat, Apr 20, 2019 at 07:57:31PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Apr 2019 at 12:46, Shahab Vahedi <shahab.vah...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > This change adapts io_readx() to its input access_type. Currently > > > io_readx() treats any memory access as a read, although it has an > > > input argument "MMUAccessType access_type". This results in: > > > > > > 1) Calling the tlb_fill() only with MMU_DATA_LOAD > > > 2) Considering only entry->addr_read as the tlb_addr > > > > > > Buglink: https://bugs.launchpad.net/qemu/+bug/1825359 > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Shahab Vahedi <shahab.vah...@gmail.com> > > > --- > > > Changelog: > > > - Extra space before closing parenthesis is removed > > > > > > accel/tcg/cputlb.c | 7 +++++-- > > > 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 2 deletions(-) > > > > Hi; this patch mostly looks good; thanks for submitting it. > > > Please let me remind you that there is a newer [PATCH v3].
Oops, yes, I missed that (was going through a lot of list emails after being away for a bit). Sorry. > I have a question though: Richard (Henderson) has already > _reviewed_ [PATCH v3]. Is it OK if I change the code further > and submit yet a newer version? If you think it's necessary, you can -- for instance if you find a bug or other problem in it. If you change the code much then you should drop the reviewed-by: line as the code needs re-review. If the change is entirely trivial (eg fixing a comment typo) then you can let the reviewed-by tag stand (ie include it in the version you send out). But if you're thinking of doing it just to fiddle with the ?: style issue I suggested above, don't bother -- it doesn't matter that much (and not trying to deal with all 3 cases means you don't have the nested ?: anyway). thanks -- PMM
