From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MgOdK-0003ks-9y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:58:14 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MgOdF-0003hZ-OU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:58:13 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52937 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MgOdF-0003hU-AS for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:58:09 -0400 Received: from mail.gmx.net ([213.165.64.20]:50571) by monty-python.gnu.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MgOdE-00089E-KZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 26 Aug 2009 15:58:09 -0400 From: "Jan-Simon =?utf-8?q?M=C3=B6ller?=" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Patch] linux-user/syscall.c - don't add GUEST_BASE to NULL pointer Date: Wed, 26 Aug 2009 21:58:03 +0200 References: <200908260002.03066.dl9pf@gmx.de> <200908260137.48781.dl9pf@gmx.de> <20090826134043.GB7862@kos.to> In-Reply-To: <20090826134043.GB7862@kos.to> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200908262158.03235.dl9pf@gmx.de> List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am Mittwoch 26 August 2009 15:40:43 schrieb Riku Voipio: > On Wed, Aug 26, 2009 at 01:37:48AM +0200, Jan-Simon M=C3=B6ller wrote: > > Thinking a bit more about this, I wonder if g2h(x) shouldn't itself > > always return NULL on x =3D NULL ? > > I agree this seems like a a better idea than modifying the users of g2h. > Ok, then please apply to master. Best, Jan-Simon