On Sat, Jul 14, 2012 at 09:09:23AM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 07:24:35PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com
wrote:
Signed-off-by:
On Fri, Jul 13, 2012 at 6:07 PM, Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 07:24:35PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com
Maybe the bitops functions
On Thu, Jul 12, 2012 at 07:24:35PM +, Blue Swirl wrote:
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com
Maybe the bitops functions should be renamed instead, for example
prefixed by 'qemu_'. That may be safer
On Tue, Jul 10, 2012 at 8:22 PM, Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com wrote:
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com
Maybe the bitops functions should be renamed instead, for example
prefixed by 'qemu_'. That may be safer if one day the kernel find
their way to system headers too.
Signed-off-by: Eduardo Habkost ehabk...@redhat.com
---
hw/apic.c | 34 +-
1 file changed, 17 insertions(+), 17 deletions(-)
diff --git a/hw/apic.c b/hw/apic.c
index 60552df..d322fe3 100644
--- a/hw/apic.c
+++ b/hw/apic.c
@@ -50,7 +50,7 @@ static int
