Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy <vsement...@virtuozzo.com> writes:
> 29.06.2020 12:36, Vladimir Sementsov-Ogievskiy wrote:
>> 24.06.2020 19:43, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>>> This is to make the next commit easier to review.
>>>
>>> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com>
>>> ---
>>> util/qemu-option.c | 32 ++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>> 1 file changed, 18 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/util/qemu-option.c b/util/qemu-option.c
>>> index 6119f971a4..9941005c91 100644
>>> --- a/util/qemu-option.c
>>> +++ b/util/qemu-option.c
>>> @@ -270,6 +270,7 @@ static void qemu_opt_del_all(QemuOpts *opts, const char
>>> *name)
>>> const char *qemu_opt_get(QemuOpts *opts, const char *name)
>>> {
>>> QemuOpt *opt;
>>> + const QemuOptDesc *desc;
>> Honestly, I don't see how this hunk helps with the following patch, which is
>> simple anyway.
>> Keeping desc variable scope smaller seems better for me, as well as further
>> scope of
>> def_val. (Still, keep my r-b if you don't want to change it).
>>
>
> Aha, I see, we have more similar patterns and you want them to look
> similarly. Still, it's
> better to keep scope of variable smaller. May be a follow-up.
The variable goes away in the next patch.
I don't expect you to read PATCH n+1 before reviewing PATCH n :)
