From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=37639 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1OsJWQ-0007Ms-35
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 05 Sep 2010 14:00:55 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1OsJWO-0006X9-WD
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 05 Sep 2010 14:00:53 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57075)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1OsJWO-0006Wx-Kn
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 05 Sep 2010 14:00:52 -0400
Date: Sun, 5 Sep 2010 20:54:56 +0300
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20100905175456.GA24336@redhat.com>
References: <AANLkTin5EdtOqVLiptMQD51HW6ei2uTmhhYwkngvGcy=@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <AANLkTin5EdtOqVLiptMQD51HW6ei2uTmhhYwkngvGcy=@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 14/15] Use gcc warning flag -Wempty-body,
	fix warnings
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.nongnu.org/archive/html/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: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Cc: qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On Sun, Sep 05, 2010 at 03:07:23PM +0000, Blue Swirl wrote:
> diff --git a/hw/pxa2xx.c b/hw/pxa2xx.c
> index 88f61c0..6e04645 100644
> --- a/hw/pxa2xx.c
> +++ b/hw/pxa2xx.c
> @@ -1877,8 +1877,9 @@ static void pxa2xx_fir_write(void *opaque,
> target_phys_addr_t addr,
>          s->control[0] = value;
>          if (!(value & (1 << 4)))			/* RXE */
>              s->rx_len = s->rx_start = 0;
> -        if (!(value & (1 << 3)))			/* TXE */
> -            /* Nop */;
> +        if (!(value & (1 << 3))) {                      /* TXE */
> +            /* Nop */
> +        }

Should we change the surrounding code to use {} to keep it consistent?
It's annoying to have {} in one place only.

>          s->enable = value & 1;				/* ITR */
>          if (!s->enable)
>              s->status[0] = 0;