From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=48568 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PhQE5-0003Yp-0W for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:29:20 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PhQDD-0001my-UO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:28:22 -0500 Received: from moutng.kundenserver.de ([212.227.126.171]:50765) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PhQDD-0001mu-Iq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Jan 2011 12:28:19 -0500 Message-ID: <4D3DB6A2.3060903@mail.berlios.de> Date: Mon, 24 Jan 2011 18:28:02 +0100 From: Stefan Weil MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] strtosz() cleanups References: <1295883211-18288-1-git-send-email-Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com> <4D3D9E8B.20000@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4D3D9E8B.20000@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Kevin Wolf Cc: Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am 24.01.2011 16:45, schrieb Kevin Wolf: > Am 24.01.2011 16:33, schrieb Jes.Sorensen@redhat.com: >> From: Jes Sorensen >> >> Hi, >> >> Here is an updated version of the strtosz() fixes that were discussed >> earlier. Per discussing with Anthony on irc, he is ok with them going >> in like this. >> >> This is a respin to fix a patch conflict in the block tree, and it >> pulls the two patch sets into one set of four patches instead. No >> functional change. >> >> Cheers, >> Jes >> >> >> Jes Sorensen (4): >> strtosz(): use unsigned char and switch to qemu_isspace() >> strtosz() use qemu_toupper() to simplify switch statement >> strtosz(): Fix name confusion in use of modf() >> strtosz(): Use suffix macros in switch() statement >> >> cutils.c | 28 ++++++++++++---------------- >> 1 files changed, 12 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-) >> > > Thanks, applied all to the block branch. > > Kevin There was some discussion regarding this patch set. I agree with Markus that part of the first patch should be removed: don't change char to unsigned char. It's not necessary, and the result is, that now unsigned chars are assigned to chars which might raise future compiler warnings. Stefan