From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:58303) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TbWkE-0003F3-RU for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:23:12 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TbWk4-0003om-Qr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:23:06 -0500 Received: from e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com ([195.75.94.108]:40685) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1TbWk4-0003lQ-Hw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 08:22:56 -0500 Received: from /spool/local by e06smtp12.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:22:51 -0000 Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.213]) by b06cxnps4074.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id qAMDMW6W57475094 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 13:22:32 GMT Received: from d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by d06av03.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id qAMDMdEZ015229 for ; Thu, 22 Nov 2012 06:22:39 -0700 Message-ID: <50AE271E.80709@de.ibm.com> Date: Thu, 22 Nov 2012 14:22:38 +0100 From: Christian Borntraeger MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1353421834-44687-1-git-send-email-borntraeger@de.ibm.com> <87k3tdc0cc.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> In-Reply-To: <87k3tdc0cc.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCHv3] Support default block interfaces per QEMUMachine List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Kevin Wolf , Peter Maydell , Anthony Liguori , Igor Mitsyanko , qemu-devel , Alexander Graf , Jens Freimann , Stefan Hajnoczi , Cornelia Huck , Andreas Faerber , Einar Lueck On 22/11/12 13:02, Markus Armbruster wrote: Thanks for the review, Stefan already applied the patch, though. Is there anything that you really want to have a followup patch besides this one? > There's just one caller that passes IF_DEFAULT. We could change it to > pass machine->block_default_type instead, and drop parameter > block_default_type. Follow-up patch. I will have a look on that. Christian