From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:40270) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gvlyX-0003Q3-ER for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:41:02 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1gvlyU-0008TR-Tk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 18 Feb 2019 11:41:01 -0500 References: <20190218125615.18970-1-armbru@redhat.com> <20190218125615.18970-2-armbru@redhat.com> From: Laszlo Ersek Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Feb 2019 17:40:27 +0100 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20190218125615.18970-2-armbru@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 01/10] pflash: Rename pflash_t to PFlashCFI01, PFlashCFI02 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: alex.bennee@linaro.org, kwolf@redhat.com, mreitz@redhat.com, qemu-block@nongnu.org, qemu-ppc@nongnu.org On 02/18/19 13:56, Markus Armbruster wrote: > flash.h's incomplete struct pflash_t is completed both in > pflash_cfi01.c and in pflash_cfi02.c. The complete types are > incompatible. O_o > This can hide type errors, such as passing a pflash_t > created with pflash_cfi02_register() to pflash_cfi01_get_memory(). > > Furthermore, POSIX reserves typedef names ending with _t. > > Rename the two structs to PFlashCFI01 and PFlashCFI02. > > Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster > --- > hw/arm/vexpress.c | 8 ++-- > hw/block/pflash_cfi01.c | 87 +++++++++++++++++++++------------------- > hw/block/pflash_cfi02.c | 67 ++++++++++++++++--------------- > hw/i386/pc_sysfw.c | 2 +- > hw/mips/mips_malta.c | 2 +- > hw/xtensa/xtfpga.c | 10 ++--- > include/hw/block/flash.h | 53 ++++++++++++++---------- > 7 files changed, 122 insertions(+), 107 deletions(-) I didn't check larger contexts in the modified files. I also didn't look for typos or try to verify the patch by recreating it from scratch, and by comparison. I read through the posted patch and it looks OK to me. Reviewed-by: Laszlo Ersek Thanks Laszlo