From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Horms Subject: Re: [PATCH] Make delaration and definition of xc_linux_save() the same Date: Fri, 13 Jan 2006 11:23:05 +0900 Message-ID: <20060113022304.GE3590@verge.net.au> References: <20060112121424.GB18315@leeni.uk.xensource.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Return-path: Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20060112121424.GB18315@leeni.uk.xensource.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xensource.com To: Ewan Mellor Cc: xen-devel@lists.xensource.com List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 12:14:24PM +0000, Ewan Mellor wrote: > On Thu, Jan 12, 2006 at 07:00:12AM +0000, Horms wrote: > > > 8604:a51fcb5de470 introduced a discrepancy between the declaration > > and definition of xc_linux_save(). In particular the argument for > > the suspend pointer to function was null in one and int in the other. > > On inspection, int seemed to be correct, so I went with this. > > I also fixed up a few other cosmetic discrepancies. > > > > Signed-Off-By: Horms > > Thanks. I've applied this with s/fd_fd/io_fd, which is what I presume you > meant. Yes, indeed. Thanks. -- Horms