From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39385) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WlHMn-0000pV-Ou for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2014 08:36:07 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WlHMh-0002EL-TM for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2014 08:36:01 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:35384 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WlHMh-0002E9-MR for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 16 May 2014 08:35:55 -0400 Message-ID: <53760629.6000904@suse.de> Date: Fri, 16 May 2014 14:35:53 +0200 From: Alexander Graf MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1400015466-16048-1-git-send-email-ncmike@ncultra.org> <5372932A.40001@redhat.com> <20140514074404.GA3610@noname.redhat.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Remove g_sequence_lookup from qemu-img help function List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell , Kevin Wolf Cc: Mike Day , Cornelia Huck , QEMU Developers , Stefan Hajnoczi , Markus Armbruster On 14.05.14 10:23, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 14 May 2014 08:44, Kevin Wolf wrote: >> Am 13.05.2014 um 23:48 hat Eric Blake geschrieben: >>> On 05/13/2014 03:11 PM, Mike Day wrote: >>> >>> Subject line could have used a [PATCHv2] designation to make it obvious >>> this is a fixed version. But that doesn't affect what goes into git. >>> >>>> g_sequence_lookup is not supported by glib < 2.28. The usage >>>> of g_sequence_lookup is not essential in this context (it's a >>>> safeguard against duplicate values in the help message). >>>> Removing the call enables the build on all platforms and >>>> does not change the operation of the help function. >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Mike Day >>>> --- >>>> qemu-img.c | 7 ++----- >>>> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 5 deletions(-) >>> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake >> Thanks, applied to the block branch. > Ah, I was thinking about applying this directly since it's a build fix. > But I guess it could go through the block branch instead... Yes, could you please apply it directly? Alex