From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34708) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UKzLP-0001q9-P6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:01:25 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UKzLO-0002Nt-TX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:01:23 -0400 Received: from e23smtp06.au.ibm.com ([202.81.31.148]:60775) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UKzLO-0002NU-CY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 27 Mar 2013 19:01:22 -0400 Received: from /spool/local by e23smtp06.au.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 08:55:57 +1000 Received: from d23relay04.au.ibm.com (d23relay04.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.120]) by d23dlp01.au.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0CEB02CE804C for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:01:16 +1100 (EST) Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (d23av03.au.ibm.com [9.190.234.97]) by d23relay04.au.ibm.com (8.13.8/8.13.8/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id r2RMmCh655967842 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 09:48:13 +1100 Received: from d23av03.au.ibm.com (loopback [127.0.0.1]) by d23av03.au.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.13.1/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id r2RN1ETE016738 for ; Thu, 28 Mar 2013 10:01:14 +1100 From: Anthony Liguori In-Reply-To: References: <1364310706-10851-1-git-send-email-aliguori@us.ibm.com> <201303272115.r2RLFlGg014471@d23av03.au.ibm.com> Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 18:01:00 -0500 Message-ID: <871ub0zbv7.fsf@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 1/2] char: introduce a blocking version of qemu_chr_fe_write List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Peter Maydell writes: > On 27 March 2013 21:15, Anthony Liguori wrote: >> Applied. Thanks. > > Replied to wrong email by accident, or applied ignoring > the review comments? I interpreted your comment as a suggestion. I'm not a fan of while (true) loops so I left it as is. Since it's a pretty important bug fix (make check was failing), I tried to get it applied quickly. I should have responded to your mail before applying it though. Regards, Anthony Liguori > > -- PMM