Anthony Liguori <anth...@codemonkey.ws> wrote:
> On 03/23/2011 04:58 AM, Juan Quintela wrote:
>> Anthony Liguori<aligu...@us.ibm.com> wrote:
>>> I don't fully understand this hack business but we need field to be unique
>>> so..
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori<aligu...@us.ibm.com>
>>> ---
>>> hw/eeprom93xx.c | 2 +-
>>> 1 files changed, 1 insertions(+), 1 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/hw/eeprom93xx.c b/hw/eeprom93xx.c
>>> index cfa695d..f1d75ec 100644
>>> --- a/hw/eeprom93xx.c
>>> +++ b/hw/eeprom93xx.c
>>> @@ -114,7 +114,7 @@ static const VMStateInfo vmstate_hack_uint16_from_uint8
>>> = {
>>> };
>>>
>>> #define VMSTATE_UINT16_HACK_TEST(_f, _s, _t) \
>>> - VMSTATE_SINGLE_TEST(_f, _s, _t, 0, vmstate_hack_uint16_from_uint8,
>>> uint16_t)
>>> + VMSTATE_SINGLE_TEST_HACK(_f, _s, _t, 0,
>>> vmstate_hack_uint16_from_uint8, uint16_t)
>>>
>>> static bool is_old_eeprom_version(void *opaque, int version_id)
>>> {
> Could we get away with just doing:
>
> VMSTATE_UNUSED(3),
> VMSTATE_UINT8(bar, ...),
Remember that we are "supposed to be" big/little endian safe.
> That's fully compatible on the wire and seems to be a clearer
> expression of exactly what the problem is.
if we are going to break big endian machines, I fully agree.
Later, Juan.
