From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: by 10.25.208.211 with SMTP id h202csp2223095lfg; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:18:22 -0700 (PDT) X-Received: by 10.140.225.6 with SMTP id v6mr600793qhb.0.1458703102602; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:18:22 -0700 (PDT) Return-Path: Received: from lists.gnu.org (lists.gnu.org. [2001:4830:134:3::11]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id x20si401984qhx.118.2016.03.22.20.18.22 for (version=TLS1 cipher=AES128-SHA bits=128/128); Tue, 22 Mar 2016 20:18:22 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org designates 2001:4830:134:3::11 as permitted sender) client-ip=2001:4830:134:3::11; Authentication-Results: mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org designates 2001:4830:134:3::11 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org Received: from localhost ([::1]:40678 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiZJO-000366-39 for alex.bennee@linaro.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:18:22 -0400 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47160) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiZJL-00035z-Hn for qemu-arm@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:18:20 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiZJI-00009w-Bs for qemu-arm@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:18:19 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:58295) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiZJI-00009n-6T; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:18:16 -0400 Received: from int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.23]) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 23E458F4EC; Wed, 23 Mar 2016 03:18:15 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pxdev.xzpeter.org (dhcp-14-238.nay.redhat.com [10.66.14.238]) by int-mx10.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (8.14.4/8.14.4) with ESMTP id u2N39Moj011547 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NO); Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:12:48 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:09:18 +0800 From: Peter Xu To: Eric Blake Message-ID: <20160323030918.GE28183@pxdev.xzpeter.org> References: <1458271654-23706-1-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> <1458271654-23706-2-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> <56F18FBC.3030909@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56F18FBC.3030909@redhat.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) X-Scanned-By: MIMEDefang 2.68 on 10.5.11.23 X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 3.x X-Received-From: 209.132.183.28 Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, drjones@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, abologna@redhat.com Subject: Re: [Qemu-arm] [PATCH v5 1/5] arm: qmp: add GICCapability struct X-BeenThere: qemu-arm@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org Sender: qemu-arm-bounces+alex.bennee=linaro.org@nongnu.org X-TUID: a+L8nxwh3Cp6 On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:32:28PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 03/17/2016 09:27 PM, Peter Xu wrote: > > +## > > +# @GICCapability: > > +# > > +# This struct describes capability for a specific GIC version. These > > Might be nice to spell out what the acronym GIC means, but that's cosmetic. Ah! I thought I have added that... It's missing again. Will do in next spin. > > > +# bits are not only decided by QEMU/KVM software version, but also > > +# decided by the hardware that the program is running upon. > > +# > > +# @version: version of GIC to be described. > > +# > > +# @emulated: whether current QEMU/hardware supports emulated GIC > > +# device in user space. > > +# > > +# @kernel: whether current QEMU/hardware supports hardware > > +# accelerated GIC device in kernel. > > +# > > +# Since: 2.6 > > +## > > +{ 'struct': 'GICCapability', > > + 'data': { 'version': 'int', > > + 'emulated': 'bool', > > + 'kernel': 'bool' } } > > > > I might have squashed this with the patch that first uses GICCapability, > as defining a type in isolation doesn't do much. I can do the squash in next spin if you prefer that one. Actually I got this question before, about when I should split and when to squash. E.g., shall I make sure that I should have no "definition only" patches in the future? -- peterx From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:47171) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiZJN-000364-7J for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:18:22 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1aiZJM-0000Af-CH for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 22 Mar 2016 23:18:21 -0400 Date: Wed, 23 Mar 2016 11:09:18 +0800 From: Peter Xu Message-ID: <20160323030918.GE28183@pxdev.xzpeter.org> References: <1458271654-23706-1-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> <1458271654-23706-2-git-send-email-peterx@redhat.com> <56F18FBC.3030909@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <56F18FBC.3030909@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v5 1/5] arm: qmp: add GICCapability struct List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: wei@redhat.com, peter.maydell@linaro.org, drjones@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, qemu-arm@nongnu.org, abologna@redhat.com On Tue, Mar 22, 2016 at 12:32:28PM -0600, Eric Blake wrote: > On 03/17/2016 09:27 PM, Peter Xu wrote: > > +## > > +# @GICCapability: > > +# > > +# This struct describes capability for a specific GIC version. These > > Might be nice to spell out what the acronym GIC means, but that's cosmetic. Ah! I thought I have added that... It's missing again. Will do in next spin. > > > +# bits are not only decided by QEMU/KVM software version, but also > > +# decided by the hardware that the program is running upon. > > +# > > +# @version: version of GIC to be described. > > +# > > +# @emulated: whether current QEMU/hardware supports emulated GIC > > +# device in user space. > > +# > > +# @kernel: whether current QEMU/hardware supports hardware > > +# accelerated GIC device in kernel. > > +# > > +# Since: 2.6 > > +## > > +{ 'struct': 'GICCapability', > > + 'data': { 'version': 'int', > > + 'emulated': 'bool', > > + 'kernel': 'bool' } } > > > > I might have squashed this with the patch that first uses GICCapability, > as defining a type in isolation doesn't do much. I can do the squash in next spin if you prefer that one. Actually I got this question before, about when I should split and when to squash. E.g., shall I make sure that I should have no "definition only" patches in the future? -- peterx