From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1NfXWv-0008Fo-03 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:48:21 -0500 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=45807 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NfXWu-0008Fg-K5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:48:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NfXWt-0004Ee-HV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:48:20 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:46357) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1NfXWs-0004EY-SD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:48:19 -0500 Received: from int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx01.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.11]) by mx1.redhat.com (8.13.8/8.13.8) with ESMTP id o1BBmGSr003588 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=OK) for ; Thu, 11 Feb 2010 06:48:17 -0500 Date: Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:48:06 -0200 From: Luiz Capitulino Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v0 00/21]: Monitor: improve handlers error handling Message-ID: <20100211094806.76aaba90@doriath> In-Reply-To: References: <1265853007-27300-1-git-send-email-lcapitulino@redhat.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Thu, 11 Feb 2010 09:58:43 +0100 Markus Armbruster wrote: > Excellent job! I'll base my next patch submissions on this series, > because that way I can resolve the conflicts now rather than after > Anthony bounced my patches right back to me. Anthony, merging this > sooner rather than later would help me. No need for undue haste, of > course. Hope you have reviewed in detail too :) > There are a few opportunities for cleanup after insertion of return > (stuff like "return -1; } else {"), but that's best done separately, to > keep the conversion obvious. Agreed.