From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M7Ev9-00078p-Ld for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 May 2009 16:31:19 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1M7Ev1-00076z-V3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 May 2009 16:31:16 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=52165 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1M7Ev0-00076o-Eo for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 May 2009 16:31:10 -0400 Received: from e31.co.us.ibm.com ([32.97.110.149]:53502) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1M7Ev0-0007zm-1f for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 21 May 2009 16:31:10 -0400 Received: from d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.106]) by e31.co.us.ibm.com (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id n4LKR82M015760 for ; Thu, 21 May 2009 14:27:08 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (d03av04.boulder.ibm.com [9.17.195.170]) by d03relay04.boulder.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v9.2) with ESMTP id n4LKUrit106364 for ; Thu, 21 May 2009 14:30:53 -0600 Received: from d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d03av04.boulder.ibm.com (8.12.11.20060308/8.13.3) with ESMTP id n4LKUqqu031471 for ; Thu, 21 May 2009 14:30:53 -0600 Message-ID: <4A15B9F5.5090704@us.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 21 May 2009 15:30:45 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <4A159CBE.9020606@mail.berlios.de> <4A15A570.4000305@us.ibm.com> <4A15AB58.1090601@mail.berlios.de> <4A15B5F7.4020402@web.de> <4A15B76E.4030807@mail.berlios.de> <4A15B922.1040501@web.de> In-Reply-To: <4A15B922.1040501@web.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH] Add new function qemu_register_machines List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Jan Kiszka Cc: QEMU Developers Jan Kiszka wrote: >>> BTW, this is also a good chance to drop the now unused return value. >>> >>> Jan >>> >>> >>> >> Yes. But one never knows, maybe some day it will be used again? :-) >> > > Not a single existing user checks the return code. > It's not quite an interface worth worry about too deeply. It should go away once we have machine configuration files in place which will hopefully be very soon. > Jan > > -- Regards, Anthony Liguori