On Wed, 17 Feb 2016 19:03:12 -0200 Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2016 at 12:43:13PM +0100, Cornelia Huck wrote: > > On Tue, 16 Feb 2016 18:59:05 -0200 > > Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> wrote: > > > > > There's no need to use g_malloc0() to allocate the channel_subsys > > > struct, just use a static variable. > > > > The original intention was to model that dynamically somehow, but I > > don't see that happening anytime soon, so we can just keep it simple. > > > > > > > > Cc: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com> > > > Cc: Christian Borntraeger <borntrae...@de.ibm.com> > > > Cc: Richard Henderson <r...@twiddle.net> > > > Cc: Alexander Graf <ag...@suse.de> > > > Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost <ehabk...@redhat.com> > > > --- > > > hw/s390x/css.c | 177 > > > ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++----------------------------- > > > 1 file changed, 88 insertions(+), 89 deletions(-) > > > > Seems fine. > > > > Should this go through the s390x tree, or will it go through another > > tree together with the other patches? In any case, have a > > > > Reviewed-by: Cornelia Huck <cornelia.h...@de.ibm.com> > > Thanks! > > I was planning to merge it through the (to be created) > machine-core tree. But it may take some days until I can do that, > so feel free to merge patches 2-3 through the s390x tree if you > want to. > Applied patches 2&3 to my s390-next branch (with some small modifications on top of another change I have queued there).
