[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <87r1h3tx3a.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
Date: Tue, 15 Jun 2021 17:18:17 +1000
From: Michael Ellerman <mpe@...erman.id.au>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu>,
Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@...nel.crashing.org>,
Paul Mackerras <paulus@...ba.org>,
naveen.n.rao@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, jniethe5@...il.com
Cc: linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linuxppc-dev@...ts.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 00/12] powerpc: Cleanup use of 'struct ppc_inst'
Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@...roup.eu> writes:
> This series is a cleanup of the use of 'struct ppc_inst'.
>
> A confusion is made between internal representation of powerpc
> instructions with 'struct ppc_inst' and in-memory code which is
> and will always be an array of 'unsigned int'.
Why don't we use u32 *, to make it even more explicit what the expected
size is?
cheers
Powered by blists - more mailing lists