>> +struct S390CPU;
>
> You define a "struct S390CPU" here ...
>
>> typedef struct S390CcwMachineState {
>> /*< private >*/
>> MachineState parent_obj;
>>
>> /*< public >*/
>> + S390CPU **cpus;
>
> ... but use the typedef'ed S390CPU here ... looks somewhat suspicious, I
> wonder whether the typedef is really in the right place?
General question: how much do we care about headers that are not consistent?
E.g. shall I forward declare or simply ignore if compilers don't bite me?
>
>> bool aes_key_wrap;
>> bool dea_key_wrap;
>> uint8_t loadparm[8];
>
> Anyway, that were just nits, I'm also fine with the patch as it is, so:
>
> Reviewed-by: Thomas Huth <th...@redhat.com>
>
--
Thanks,
David
