avoid dubiously clever code in win32_start_timer
The code is initializing an unsigned int to UINT_MAX using "-1", so that the following always-true comparison seems to be always-false at a first look. Since alarm timer initializations are never nested, it is simpler to unconditionally store the result of timeGetDevCaps into data->period. Signed-off-by: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com> Signed-off-by: Anthony Liguori <aliguori@us.ibm.com>
This commit is contained in:
parent
6d0ee85040
commit
9aea10297f
6
vl.c
6
vl.c
@ -626,7 +626,7 @@ static struct qemu_alarm_timer *alarm_timer;
|
||||
struct qemu_alarm_win32 {
|
||||
MMRESULT timerId;
|
||||
unsigned int period;
|
||||
} alarm_win32_data = {0, -1};
|
||||
} alarm_win32_data = {0, 0};
|
||||
|
||||
static int win32_start_timer(struct qemu_alarm_timer *t);
|
||||
static void win32_stop_timer(struct qemu_alarm_timer *t);
|
||||
@ -1360,9 +1360,7 @@ static int win32_start_timer(struct qemu_alarm_timer *t)
|
||||
memset(&tc, 0, sizeof(tc));
|
||||
timeGetDevCaps(&tc, sizeof(tc));
|
||||
|
||||
if (data->period < tc.wPeriodMin)
|
||||
data->period = tc.wPeriodMin;
|
||||
|
||||
data->period = tc.wPeriodMin;
|
||||
timeBeginPeriod(data->period);
|
||||
|
||||
flags = TIME_CALLBACK_FUNCTION;
|
||||
|
Loading…
Reference in New Issue
Block a user