From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:54944) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cQxYt-00053L-GV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:38:08 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cQxYp-0004Y6-Ig for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:38:07 -0500 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:48544) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1cQxYp-0004Xs-DT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 10 Jan 2017 09:38:03 -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Jan 2017 16:38:00 +0200 From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" Message-ID: <20170110162151-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> References: <1479108340-3453-1-git-send-email-caoj.fnst@cn.fujitsu.com> <20170109234446-mutt-send-email-mst@kernel.org> <87bmvftejz.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87bmvftejz.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v7 00/10] Convert msix_init() to error List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Cao jin , Jiri Pirko , Jason Wang , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Marcel Apfelbaum , Alex Williamson , Hannes Reinecke , Dmitry Fleytman , Paolo Bonzini , Gerd Hoffmann On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:06:08AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: > "Michael S. Tsirkin" writes: > > > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 03:25:30PM +0800, Cao jin wrote: > >> v7 changelog: > >> 1. fix the segfaut bug in patch 2. So drop the all the R-b of it, > >> please take a look, there is detailed description in the patch. > >> 2. add the R-b from Hannes Reinecke > >> > >> Test: > >> 1. make check: pass > >> 2. After applied all the patch, command line test for all the > >> affected devices, just make sure device realize process is ok, > >> no crash, but no further use of device. > > > > Consider the megasas device for example, don't you > > need to test that the change actually does what > > it's intended to do? > > For better or worse, that's a higher bar than we commonly require for > refactorings. > > [...] Well the patch says that it's addressing a TODO. If no one can be bothered to test the functionality, maybe we shouldn't bother with the change. Generally this patchset is at v7. It brings a very limited benefit to the project. It better be perfect otherwise I don't see why bother. -- MST