From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:54886) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TQKra-0007Wh-AJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:28:27 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TQKrZ-0004Y4-6k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:28:26 -0400 Received: from v220110690675601.yourvserver.net ([78.47.199.172]:52163) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TQKrZ-0004Xp-0k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Oct 2012 12:28:25 -0400 Message-ID: <50857425.3020607@weilnetz.de> Date: Mon, 22 Oct 2012 18:28:21 +0200 From: Stefan Weil MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1350914024-4794-1-git-send-email-coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> In-Reply-To: <1350914024-4794-1-git-send-email-coreyb@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] main: Hide F_GETFD and FD_CLOEXEC use for _WIN32 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Corey Bryant Cc: kwolf@redhat.com, gollub@b1-systems.de, lcapitulino@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, agraf@suse.de Am 22.10.2012 15:53, schrieb Corey Bryant: > Signed-off-by: Corey Bryant > --- > vl.c | 2 ++ > 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+) > > diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c > index 200d849..94c667d 100644 > --- a/vl.c > +++ b/vl.c > @@ -812,11 +812,13 @@ static int parse_add_fd(QemuOpts *opts, void *opaque) > return -1; > } > > +#ifndef _WIN32 > if (fcntl(fd, F_GETFD)& FD_CLOEXEC) { > qerror_report(ERROR_CLASS_GENERIC_ERROR, > "fd is not valid or already in use"); > return -1; > } > +#endif > > if (fdset_id< 0) { > qerror_report(ERROR_CLASS_GENERIC_ERROR, Are you sure that all other hosts provide F_GETFD and FD_CLOEXEC and that MinGW will never do that? Maybe testing those two macros instead of _WIN32 would be better: #if defined(F_GETFD) && defined(FD_CLOEXEC) ... #endif I also think that this patch should be merged with the one which adds that code and not applied as a separate patch (otherwise git bisect would be broken). Regards Stefan Weil