From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1Khwcb-0002ha-Bg for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:23:21 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KhwcZ-0002gc-Lm for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:23:21 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49423 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KhwcZ-0002gL-C3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:23:19 -0400 Received: from [67.18.187.6] (port=40125 helo=tjworld.net) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KhwcZ-00052W-Bl for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 22 Sep 2008 21:23:19 -0400 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Add USB sys file-system support (v5) From: TJ In-Reply-To: <48D81E26.9080802@codemonkey.ws> References: <1220571341.2638.6.camel@hephaestion> <1220580385.2638.15.camel@hephaestion> <48C1346F.3000405@windriver.com> <1220640699.5470.15.camel@hephaestion> <48C1862C.3050307@windriver.com> <1220649226.9611.13.camel@hephaestion> <48C53B04.9030006@windriver.com> <1221679892.17792.6.camel@hephaestion> <48D16904.30104@codemonkey.ws> <1221691647.17792.55.camel@hephaestion> <48D81E26.9080802@codemonkey.ws> Content-Type: text/plain Date: Tue, 23 Sep 2008 02:23:12 +0100 Message-Id: <1222132992.18297.10.camel@hephaestion> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: kvm On Mon, 2008-09-22 at 17:37 -0500, Anthony Liguori wrote: > This patch is still white spaced damaged. > Is identical to this chunk with the exception of whitespace. But > curiously, not enough white space to warrant such a large diff. I broke > out ediff-buffers to verify this. Did you reformat this whole region > and then just query-replace the tabs with spaces? I can't see how diff > would generate this chunk otherwise. > > There should be no changes here. I don't mean to be pedantic but it's > extremely difficult to review a patch like this. I suspect it is because I copy/pasted that code from its original location in usb_host_scan() to the new usb_host_scan_dev(), and subsequently did some shuffling about. Could it also be because that hunk has moved both location and containing function? I was trying to figure out in my head how diff would efficiently handle that but gave up :) It looks as if I need to recreate the new source version again manually, making sure the editor doesn't mess with tabs.