From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:55209) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Xehve-0000gZ-QV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:05:11 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XehvZ-000146-ID for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:05:06 -0400 Received: from mail-lb0-f171.google.com ([209.85.217.171]:51147) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1XehvZ-00012w-C7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 06:05:01 -0400 Received: by mail-lb0-f171.google.com with SMTP id z12so2515778lbi.30 for ; Thu, 16 Oct 2014 03:05:00 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1413363967-2489-4-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> References: <1413363967-2489-1-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> <1413363967-2489-4-git-send-email-kraxel@redhat.com> From: Peter Maydell Date: Thu, 16 Oct 2014 12:04:39 +0200 Message-ID: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 03/34] bootindex: add del_boot_device_path function List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Gerd Hoffmann Cc: Chenliang , Gonglei , QEMU Developers On 15 October 2014 11:05, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: > From: Gonglei > > Introduce del_boot_device_path() to clean up fw_cfg content when > hot-unplugging a device that refers to a bootindex or update a > existent devcie's bootindex. > +void del_boot_device_path(DeviceState *dev, const char *suffix) > +{ > + FWBootEntry *i; > + > + if (dev == NULL) { > + return; > + } > + > + QTAILQ_FOREACH(i, &fw_boot_order, link) { > + if ((!suffix || !g_strcmp0(i->suffix, suffix)) && I've just noticed that this won't build with our minimum required glib version: g_strcmp0 wasn't introduced until glib 2.16. It should be fairly easy to provide a back-compat implementation in our glib-compat.h header, or you could just rephrase this to work with the usual strcmp, since you're already doing a manual NULL check on one of the arguments. thanks -- PMM