From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53877)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@redhat.com>) id 1WnrKM-0007gr-Ri
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 11:24:18 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@redhat.com>) id 1WnrKF-0006nr-3b
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 11:24:10 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:10523)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <stefanha@redhat.com>) id 1WnrKE-0006nf-KP
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 23 May 2014 11:24:02 -0400
Date: Fri, 23 May 2014 17:24:00 +0200
From: Stefan Hajnoczi <stefanha@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20140523152400.GA29542@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
References: <1400845497-29618-1-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<1400845497-29618-2-git-send-email-pbonzini@redhat.com>
	<20140523150317.GA3058@stefanha-thinkpad.redhat.com>
	<537F65B0.1020609@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <537F65B0.1020609@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/4] glib-compat.h: add new thread API
 emulation on top of pre-2.31 API
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/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: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>
Cc: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru>, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mjt@mls.msk.ru

On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 05:13:52PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Il 23/05/2014 17:03, Stefan Hajnoczi ha scritto:
> >On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 01:44:54PM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>+static inline gpointer do_g_cond_new(gpointer unused)
> >>+{
> >>+    return (gpointer) (gpointer) (gpointer) (gpointer) (gpointer) (gpointer) (gpointer) (gpointer) (gpointer) g_cond_new();
> >
> >what what what what what what what what what what what?
> 
> I guess I fat-fingered an "i" into "9i"...
> 
> Is this the only complaint? :)

I need to review it properly on Monday.

Stefan