From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:37539) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bX4sd-0002tC-ME for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 07:07:32 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bX4sW-0000I7-Uy for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 07:07:30 -0400 Received: from mo173.mail-out.ovh.net ([178.32.228.173]:37439) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bX4sW-0000HX-Oa for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Aug 2016 07:07:24 -0400 Received: from player157.ha.ovh.net (b9.ovh.net [213.186.33.59]) by mo173.mail-out.ovh.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id CB51A1004D4E for ; Tue, 9 Aug 2016 13:07:23 +0200 (CEST) References: <1470731119-14661-1-git-send-email-clg@kaod.org> From: =?UTF-8?Q?C=c3=a9dric_Le_Goater?= Message-ID: <67e17eb6-9749-14fd-b747-bcb02ab77dd6@kaod.org> Date: Tue, 9 Aug 2016 13:07:17 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] spar: remove extra type variable List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Thomas Huth , qemu-ppc@nongnu.org Cc: Bharata B Rao , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, David Gibson On 08/09/2016 01:05 PM, Thomas Huth wrote: > On 09.08.2016 10:25, C=C3=A9dric Le Goater wrote: >> The sPAPR CPU core typename is already available in the upper >> block. >> >> Signed-off-by: C=C3=A9dric Le Goater >> --- >> hw/ppc/spapr.c | 1 - >> 1 file changed, 1 deletion(-) >> >> diff --git a/hw/ppc/spapr.c b/hw/ppc/spapr.c >> index fdc6644d61cb..6dc5fe48971e 100644 >> --- a/hw/ppc/spapr.c >> +++ b/hw/ppc/spapr.c >> @@ -1783,7 +1783,6 @@ static void ppc_spapr_init(MachineState *machine= ) >> qemu_register_reset(spapr_drc_reset, drc); >> =20 >> if (i < spapr_cores) { >> - char *type =3D spapr_get_cpu_core_type(machine->cpu_m= odel); >> Object *core; >> =20 >> if (!object_class_by_name(type)) { >=20 > Good point. But I think the "if (!object_class_by_name(type))" check > could then also be moved to the outer block instead. yes. I will rework that.=20 Thanks, C. =20