30.05.2015 10:54, Shannon Zhao пишет: > From: Shannon Zhao <[email protected]> > > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <[email protected]> > Signed-off-by: Shannon Zhao <[email protected]> > --- > hw/mips/mips_jazz.c | 28 ++++++++++++++-------------- > 1 file changed, 14 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > > diff --git a/hw/mips/mips_jazz.c b/hw/mips/mips_jazz.c > index 2c153e0..259458b 100644 > --- a/hw/mips/mips_jazz.c > +++ b/hw/mips/mips_jazz.c > @@ -135,7 +135,7 @@ static void mips_jazz_init(MachineState *machine, > MIPSCPU *cpu; > CPUClass *cc; > CPUMIPSState *env; > - qemu_irq *rc4030, *i8259; > + qemu_irq *i8259;
Hm. Why do you only cover rc4030, not i8259? Besides, in order to keep the changes smaller, I think it is okay to keep the variables like that, here and in the rest of the function, and only add assignment of it to machine->irqs. This way, we also keep semantic names of the variables, rc4030[i] is easier to understand than machine->irqs[i], the former's more specific. BTW, there's also cpu_exit_irq in this function whose allocation also suffers from qemu_allocate_irqs(..., 1) API abuse. /mjt
