From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MHOIW-000541-1z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:33:24 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MHOIR-00052t-GM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:33:23 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55489 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MHOIR-00052o-AV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:33:19 -0400 Received: from mail-qy0-f191.google.com ([209.85.221.191]:49795) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MHOIR-0003gd-0m for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 16:33:19 -0400 Received: by qyk29 with SMTP id 29so1695099qyk.4 for ; Thu, 18 Jun 2009 13:33:18 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A3AA47F.9090004@codemonkey.ws> Date: Thu, 18 Jun 2009 15:33:03 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4] avoid compilation warning/errors on up to date References: <200906172322.35496.jcd@tribudubois.net> <200906180041.31816.jcd@tribudubois.net> <4A39737F.7070101@codemonkey.ws> <200906180116.37819.jcd@tribudubois.net> <20090618171639.1a3c1364@doriath> In-Reply-To: <20090618171639.1a3c1364@doriath> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Luiz Capitulino Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Jean-Christophe Dubois Luiz Capitulino wrote: > On Thu, 18 Jun 2009 01:16:37 +0200 > "Jean-Christophe Dubois" wrote: > > >> And whatever I have added is a lot more robust than what was before. >> Once again, please just show me where my patch is incorrect and I >> will fix it. >> > > I really missed this v4, sorry for that and thanks for letting me know. > > I think the first step is to do one logical change at a time. You > could, for example do: > > 1. Add qemu_read() and qemu_write() > We already have these in various places. The problem is, we often want different semantics. We don't always want to retry partial results (like for live migration). We need a more rationalized approach to this. > 2. Port one subsystem per-patch for each of them > Yes, and for each fixup, fix the whole function, not just a handful of functions that gcc currently whines about. N.B. I will be pushing -U_FORTIFY_SOURCE so the ubuntu build breakage will be fixed. We have the time to fix these warnings correctly. Regards, Anthony Liguori