From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59721)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1YW5Fu-0005Bk-Dv
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:42:39 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1YW5Fr-0006a4-0i
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:42:38 -0400
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:60045)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <lersek@redhat.com>) id 1YW5Fq-0006Zr-Pk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 12 Mar 2015 11:42:34 -0400
Message-ID: <5501B3E1.5000208@redhat.com>
Date: Thu, 12 Mar 2015 16:42:25 +0100
From: Laszlo Ersek <lersek@redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20150311152758.GU1832@HEDWIG.INI.CMU.EDU>	<55008E80.50907@redhat.com>	<20150311204537.GW1832@HEDWIG.INI.CMU.EDU>
	<5500B3E1.8020402@redhat.com> <55019FE8.1020706@redhat.com>
In-Reply-To: <55019FE8.1020706@redhat.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] fw_cfg specification ?
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, "Gabriel L. Somlo" <gsomlo@gmail.com>
Cc: jordan.l.justen@intel.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, gleb@cloudius-systems.com

On 03/12/15 15:17, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> 
> 
> On 11/03/2015 22:30, Laszlo Ersek wrote:
>> In any case, I'm unaware of *any* instance when an fw_cfg blob is
>> rewritten by the guest.
>>
>> In fact, such *write* callbacks are registered in qemu with
>> fw_cfg_add_callback(), and I can't see any calls to that function. It's
>> dead code, apparently.
> 
> Let's nuke it. :)

Okay... Gabriel, do you want to include such a patch in your upcoming
series, or should I do the nuking sooner?

Thanks
Laszlo