Am 24.02.2013 15:07, schrieb Peter Maydell: > On 24 February 2013 11:42, Andreas Färber <afaer...@suse.de> wrote: >> Am 24.02.2013 12:31, schrieb Peter Maydell: >>> In this case I actually kind of 50% thought they were the >>> result of conflicts/merge process rather than intentional, >>> which is why I cleaned them up. I don't actually care one >>> way or the other, so you can reinstate them if you prefer. >> >> My reasoning was to differenciate between the header guard and any >> in-file #ifdef CONFIG_USER_ONLY or TARGET_FOO, which for functions I >> usually separate by one line. >> >> I don't really care too much though, it's just the principle that angers >> me that you made me go through hoops, propagating >> adopt-the-author's-style when it comes to target-arm files, while now >> violating your own paradigm and apparently even finding that funny. > > I'm sorry; that smiley was perhaps misplaced. I dropped the > blank lines because I didn't understand their purpose and > part of my process before sending patches out is "read patch > and fix anything I would comment on if it were code review > of somebody else's patch". You've explained the rationale for > them, so I will reinstate them. V2 coming up later today or > tomorrow.
Please don't. It's on qom-cpu as is, and I've had to rebase four follow-up branches that all add something to the bottom of those files, so having to go through that again is no improvement. Rather try to be more relaxed when I add something to my cpu.c or cpu-qom.h files next time, the audio code is already big enough an exception-from-the-rule for cross-target changes. ;) Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
