On 08/31/2017 06:43 AM, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 31.08.2017 11:36, Marc-André Lureau wrote:
Hi
On Thu, Aug 31, 2017 at 7:20 AM Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com
<mailto:th...@redhat.com>> wrote:
On 31.08.2017 05:53, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> Suggested-by: Peter Maydell <peter.mayd...@linaro.org
<mailto:peter.mayd...@linaro.org>>
> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4...@amsat.org
<mailto:f4...@amsat.org>>
> ---
> include/hw/char/serial.h | 1 +
> hw/char/serial.c | 13 +++++++++++++
> 2 files changed, 14 insertions(+)
>
> diff --git a/include/hw/char/serial.h b/include/hw/char/serial.h
> index c4daf11a14..96bccb39e1 100644
> --- a/include/hw/char/serial.h
> +++ b/include/hw/char/serial.h
> @@ -93,6 +93,7 @@ SerialState *serial_mm_init(MemoryRegion
*address_space,
> hwaddr base, int it_shift,
> qemu_irq irq, int baudbase,
> Chardev *chr, enum device_endian end);
> +Chardev *serial_chr_nonnull(Chardev *chr);
Why do you need the prototype? Please make the function static if
possible (otherwise please add some rationale in the patch description).
It's being used from other units in following patches
Ah, well, right. I was only on CC: in the first two patches, so I missed
the other ones at the first glance. So never mind my comment, the
prototype is fine here.
Is it better/easier to use the same list for the cover and all the patches?
I try to shorten the it to help overloaded reviewer to focus on the
patches I think they can help. But this case show it's not that useful.
