From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KPkPo-0002cb-Ny for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:42:56 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KPkPn-0002Z6-5q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:42:56 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=49376 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KPkPm-0002Yl-QZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:42:54 -0400 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.245]:29005) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KPkPm-0005E6-Px for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 03 Aug 2008 16:42:54 -0400 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id d18so519190and.130 for ; Sun, 03 Aug 2008 13:42:53 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4896182A.1040001@codemonkey.ws> Date: Sun, 03 Aug 2008 15:42:18 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2] Fix compilation of nbd on Windows References: <20080704092849.5BC0.20F538E7@nsfocus.com> <20080704023451.GO7007@networkno.de> <20080704115101.5BC9.20F538E7@nsfocus.com> <1215160927.3802.4.camel@frecb07144> <20080704203231.GB31670@networkno.de> <4895E6CC.6040906@codemonkey.ws> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed 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: Johannes Schindelin Cc: Laurent Vivier , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, chenqing Johannes Schindelin wrote: > Hi, > > [was it intentional that you culled me, and me alone, from the Cc: list? > I know that you like to be rude against me, but I'd like to know if it > was really meant this way this time.] > No, it's the annoying way that the mailing list is configured. The mailing list sets a Reply-To header and reply to all in thunderbird ignores the original From line (because Reply-To has been set). > It is not the definition, but just the declaration. The problem is mixing a static and non-static declaration of a function. > And by your own > reasoning, it should not be in vl.c but in qemu_socket.h, Yup. > where I would > have picked up on it and spared myself writing my own implementation of > inet_aton(). > > Indeed, it seems that inet_aton() is defined in slirp/misc.c. So > qemu_socket.h is not even the right place for the definition, but better > than nothing. > Ugh, I wonder what happens when you do --disable-slirp :-( Do you want to work up a patch to sanitize all of this or should I? Regards, Anthony Liguori > Ciao, > Dscho > >