From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:49961)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1Z5ghm-0007gb-G3
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:46:35 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1Z5ghj-0002jF-65
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:46:34 -0400
Received: from mail-yh0-f43.google.com ([209.85.213.43]:34943)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1Z5ghj-0002j3-2O
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 16:46:31 -0400
Received: by yhak3 with SMTP id k3so64778537yha.2
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Thu, 18 Jun 2015 13:46:30 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <1434554713-10220-1-git-send-email-serge.fdrv@gmail.com>
References: <1434554713-10220-1-git-send-email-serge.fdrv@gmail.com>
From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2015 21:46:10 +0100
Message-ID: <CAFEAcA8=ET6kLWT_bo=vxuX+=oQCz+GYZ9uJhGMYELGh50Gkhg@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-arm: Do not reset sysregs marked as
	ALIAS
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Sergey Fedorov <serge.fdrv@gmail.com>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 17 June 2015 at 16:25, Sergey Fedorov <serge.fdrv@gmail.com> wrote:
> cp_reg_reset() is called from g_hash_table_foreach() which does not
> define a specific ordering of the hash table iteration. Thus doing reset
> for registers marked as ALIAS would give an ambiguous result when
> resetvalue is different for original and alias resisters.

Was this actually the case for any of our registers? ie, is this
patch fixing a bug, or just cleaning up a potential cause of
confusion?

> Exit
> cp_reg_reset() early when passed an alias register. Then clean up alias
> register definitions from needless resetvalue and resetfn.
>
> Signed-off-by: Sergey Fedorov <serge.fdrv@gmail.com>

I've applied it to target-arm.next, but if this is fixing a bug
it would be nice if I could update the commit message to say so.

thanks
-- PMM