From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MIRRd-0005Qn-A3 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:07:09 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MIRRc-0005QI-QW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:07:08 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=59708 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MIRRc-0005QB-NJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:07:08 -0400 Received: from fg-out-1718.google.com ([72.14.220.156]:6077) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MIRRc-0001vB-5k for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 14:07:08 -0400 Received: by fg-out-1718.google.com with SMTP id l27so406126fgb.8 for ; Sun, 21 Jun 2009 11:07:06 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4A3E5071.7080407@redhat.com> References: <61E57A9F-6D9A-4DF3-9CE6-0B8056DD1C60@web.de> <4A3E5071.7080407@redhat.com> Date: Sun, 21 Jun 2009 21:07:06 +0300 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] cocoa.m issues fixed From: Blue Swirl Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Avi Kivity Cc: G 3 , =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= , qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 6/21/09, Avi Kivity wrote: > On 06/21/2009 05:06 PM, G 3 wrote: > > > > > On Jun 21, 2009, at 6:10 AM, Andreas F=C3=A4rber wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Am 21.06.2009 um 03:19 schrieb G 3: > > > > > > > > > > +int cocoa_keycode_to_qemu(int keycode); > > > > + > > > > > > > > > > This seems unrelated. I believe you're trying to suppress a warning I= 've > been seeing on 10.5 as well - if so, please provide that as a separate pa= tch > with appropriate description. > > > > > > > > > > This function prototype would eliminate this warning: > > cocoa.m:233: warning: no previous prototype for `cocoa_keycode_to_qemu' > > > > Why a separate patch. Why not kill two birds with one stone? > > > > It's standard operating procedure. Suppose in addition to the two birds > you mention the patch also kills an innocent kitten. Since it's one patc= h, > if a fix is not immediately forthcoming, the maintainer has to revert the > patch, bringing both birds back to life. How nasty for you to forget the poor little kitten, who should be entitled to get her life back. > With one patch per bird, the maintainer can revert just the patch which > killed the kitten, leaving the other bird dead. Also here, do you really hate kittens that much? ;-)