On Sun, Nov 25, 2012 at 10:47:00AM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 25 November 2012 07:50, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen)
> wrote:
> > ping?
>
> This is v1 of the patch, you've sent a v2 and should be pinging that
> instead... Also (a) it won't go in before 1.3 release now so not
> much point in being to
On 25 November 2012 07:50, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) wrote:
> ping?
This is v1 of the patch, you've sent a v2 and should be pinging that
instead... Also (a) it won't go in before 1.3 release now so not
much point in being too eager with the pings (b) you could cc
qemu-trivial.
-- PMM
ping?
On Tue, Nov 20, 2012 at 12:41:03PM +, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 20 November 2012 12:30, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen)
> wrote:
> > When tb_remove was first commited at fd6ce8f6, there were three different
> > calls pass different names to offsetof. In current codebase, the other two
> > calls
On 20 November 2012 12:30, 陳韋任 (Wei-Ren Chen) wrote:
> When tb_remove was first commited at fd6ce8f6, there were three different
> calls pass different names to offsetof. In current codebase, the other two
> calls are replaced with tb_page_remove. There is no need to have a general
> tb_remove.
When tb_remove was first commited at fd6ce8f6, there were three different
calls pass different names to offsetof. In current codebase, the other two
calls are replaced with tb_page_remove. There is no need to have a general
tb_remove. Omit passing the third parameter and using tb1->phys_hash_next
