From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1ME1Je-0002Pb-9e
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:24:38 -0400
Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1ME1JZ-0002DX-CI
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:24:37 -0400
Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=55927 helo=monty-python.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1ME1JZ-0002DF-7W
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:24:33 -0400
Received: from mx2.redhat.com ([66.187.237.31]:40359)
	by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60)
	(envelope-from <gleb@redhat.com>) id 1ME1JY-0003hS-QB
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 09 Jun 2009 09:24:33 -0400
Date: Tue, 9 Jun 2009 16:22:28 +0300
From: Gleb Natapov <gleb@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv2] remove unused field from pci device.
Message-ID: <20090609132228.GC15949@redhat.com>
References: <20090609091831.GT27210@redhat.com>
	<200906091401.54908.paul@codesourcery.com>
	<20090609130336.GB15949@redhat.com>
	<200906091411.59723.paul@codesourcery.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <200906091411.59723.paul@codesourcery.com>
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paul Brook <paul@codesourcery.com>
Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org

On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 02:11:58PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> On Tuesday 09 June 2009, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 09, 2009 at 02:01:52PM +0100, Paul Brook wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 09 June 2009, Gleb Natapov wrote:
> > > > Rename pci_irq_index to pci_device_count because this is what it
> > > > actually does.
> > >
> > > This whole thing looks bogus. AFAICS the limit is completely arbitrary
> > > and unnecessary.
> >
> > So? Left it bogus with unused field and cryptic name instead?
> 
> No. Remove the whole thing.
Well, not with may understanding of that code, but if somebody wants to
do it...

--
			Gleb.