From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43)
	id 1NwK0P-0004oq-3h
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:48:09 -0400
Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=54990 helo=eggs.gnu.org)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1NwK0O-0004oT-3d
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:48:08 -0400
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1NwK0L-0004dU-UF
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:48:07 -0400
Received: from mail-pw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.160.45]:61782)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69)
	(envelope-from <blauwirbel@gmail.com>) id 1NwK0L-0004dC-Mg
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 14:48:05 -0400
Received: by pwi9 with SMTP id 9so7773918pwi.4
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Mon, 29 Mar 2010 11:48:04 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <4BB2465B.9040209@redhat.com>
References: <4BAD1763.4040602@redhat.com>
	<f43fc5581003270214l3b702efasbb3d63d2baa3b946@mail.gmail.com>
	<4BB2465B.9040209@redhat.com>
Date: Mon, 29 Mar 2010 21:48:03 +0300
Message-ID: <f43fc5581003291148w15f154a3kd1cf7e2cfcc0cf14@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Fix busted driftfix option
From: Blue Swirl <blauwirbel@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.gnu.org/pipermail/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Zachary Amsden <zamsden@redhat.com>
Cc: QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 3/30/10, Zachary Amsden <zamsden@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 03/26/10 23:14, Blue Swirl wrote:
>  > On 3/26/10, Zachary Amsden <zamsden@redhat.com> wrote:
>  >
>  >> For some reason, this uses CONFIG_TARGET_I386 instead of TARGET_I386, so
>  >>  the code is dead.
>  >>
>  > The code is also broken: it references undefined variable 'buf'
>  > instead of 'value'.
>  >
>
>
> Sorry, that wasn't the case on the branch I ported from.  Can you apply
>  a trivial fix or should I send along a patch?

I've already committed the fix.