On 05/10/2015 20:47, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 5 October 2015 at 19:11, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
>> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 07:44:29PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> On 17 September 2015 at 17:32, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
On 17/09/2015 18:16, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 September
On 5 October 2015 at 19:11, Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 07:44:29PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 17 September 2015 at 17:32, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > On 17/09/2015 18:16, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> >> On 17 September 2015 at 17:00, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>> >>>
>>
On Sun, Oct 04, 2015 at 07:44:29PM +0100, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 September 2015 at 17:32, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 17/09/2015 18:16, Peter Maydell wrote:
> >> On 17 September 2015 at 17:00, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On 17/09/2015 16:24, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Ca
On 17 September 2015 at 17:32, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 17/09/2015 18:16, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> On 17 September 2015 at 17:00, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> On 17/09/2015 16:24, Peter Maydell wrote:
Can we revert this one, please? Checkpatch now warns about constructs
like
>>>
Eric Blake writes:
> On 09/17/2015 10:32 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
> Can we revert this one, please? Checkpatch now warns about constructs
> like
> typedef struct MyDevice {
> DeviceState parent;
>
> int reg0, reg1, reg2;
> } MyDevice;
It's i
On 09/17/2015 10:32 AM, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
Can we revert this one, please? Checkpatch now warns about constructs
like
typedef struct MyDevice {
DeviceState parent;
int reg0, reg1, reg2;
} MyDevice;
>>>
>>> It's interesting that qom/object.h docu
On 17/09/2015 18:16, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 17 September 2015 at 17:00, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 17/09/2015 16:24, Peter Maydell wrote:
>>> Can we revert this one, please? Checkpatch now warns about constructs
>>> like
>>> typedef struct MyDevice {
>>> DeviceState parent;
>>>
On 17 September 2015 at 17:00, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
>
>
> On 17/09/2015 16:24, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> Can we revert this one, please? Checkpatch now warns about constructs
>> like
>> typedef struct MyDevice {
>> DeviceState parent;
>>
>> int reg0, reg1, reg2;
>> } MyDevice;
>
> It
On 17/09/2015 16:24, Peter Maydell wrote:
> Can we revert this one, please? Checkpatch now warns about constructs
> like
> typedef struct MyDevice {
> DeviceState parent;
>
> int reg0, reg1, reg2;
> } MyDevice;
It's interesting that qom/object.h documents this and start like:
t
On 7 September 2015 at 10:53, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Mostly change severity levels, but some tests can also be adjusted to refer
> to QEMU APIs or data structures.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
> @@ -1956,9 +1941,14 @@ sub process {
> ERROR("open brace '{' following $1
On Mon, Sep 07, 2015 at 11:53:03AM +0200, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> Mostly change severity levels, but some tests can also be adjusted to refer
> to QEMU APIs or data structures.
>
> Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
> ---
> scripts/checkpatch.pl | 141
> +---
Mostly change severity levels, but some tests can also be adjusted to refer
to QEMU APIs or data structures.
Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini
---
scripts/checkpatch.pl | 141 +-
1 file changed, 60 insertions(+), 81 deletions(-)
diff --git a/scripts/ch
12 matches
Mail list logo
