The break in the QEMU_OPTION_machine case is mis-placed.
Not a big deal, since producing the same outcome, but
suspicious, so put it in the correct place.
Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
---
system/vl.c | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/system/vl.c b/syst
On 24/3/25 10:09, Daniel P. Berrangé wrote:
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 12:00:06AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
The break in the QEMU_OPTION_machine case is mis-placed.
I think that's largely a bikeshed colouring question. If you
look at other places in the outer switch using a block in
th
On Mon, Mar 24, 2025 at 12:00:06AM +0100, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> The break in the QEMU_OPTION_machine case is mis-placed.
I think that's largely a bikeshed colouring question. If you
look at other places in the outer switch using a block in
the case, eg
case FOO:
{
On Mon, 24 Mar 2025, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
The break in the QEMU_OPTION_machine case is mis-placed.
Not a big deal, since producing the same outcome, but
suspicious, so put it in the correct place.
Why is it misplaced? It's at the end of the block. This swich has other
cases that put
