On 18/01/15 21:15, Mark Cave-Ayland wrote: > On 02/01/15 17:30, Peter Maydell wrote: > >> On 2 January 2015 at 13:57, Mark Cave-Ayland >> <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> wrote: >>> On 23/12/14 22:11, Peter Maydell wrote: >>>> These patches fix warnings generated by clang. Patches 1-3 >>>> have been onlist before (and reviewed by RTH) but didn't get >>>> applied I think because of a mixup between me and Mark about >>>> which tree they should go in by. 4 and 5 are new. >> >>> Oh my apologies! Given that there's not much review that I can >>> personally do (and they are just compilation fixes) then I was expecting >>> these to go either via master or Richard. If that is still a problem let >>> me know and I'll queue them as part of my next pull request. >> >> Where we have a subsystem maintainer I tend to prefer to route >> patches via them, on the assumption that they'll do a second >> level of testing (even if only of the "yep, still boots" >> variety). Also it avoids potential clashes between different >> patches to the same target if they all go through your tree. >> The idea behind the subsystem-maintainer setup is to spread >> the workload a bit :-) > > I've finally managed to test these and they don't seem to break anything > in my boot tests so I've applied them to my qemu-sparc branch. > > There is one more SPARC64 NVRAM patch I'd like to get in before sending > another pull request, however it depends upon on a related QEMU NVRAM > patch series which I'll send through to the list shortly.
Looks like the NVRAM patches I wanted to apply are now dependent upon Herve's isa_mem_base removal and m48t59 QOM patches; I'll send through a pull request with just your clang warning patchset in a moment to clear them from the queue. ATB, Mark.
