From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:53141) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ScHJa-00039G-Nh for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:34:36 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ScHJR-0006HP-WD for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:34:26 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:52037 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ScHJR-0006H8-Q0 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:34:17 -0400 Message-ID: <4FCF6A5C.4030904@suse.de> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:34:04 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1337683555-13301-1-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com> <4FCE7684.2070206@redhat.com> <4FCF5512.9000704@redhat.com> <4FCF5BA8.3010201@suse.de> <4FCF64E4.50701@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4FCF64E4.50701@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/16] introduce OptsVisitor, rebase -net/-netdev parsing List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Paolo Bonzini , Laszlo Ersek Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Michael Roth Am 06.06.2012 16:10, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > Il 06/06/2012 15:31, Andreas F=E4rber ha scritto: >>>> >>>> (a) add < 0 checks to an= d >>>> include it in the series, >>>> (b) make all Netdev integer types as strict as possible, remove >>>> superfluous checks, >>>> (c) render NetLegacy::name optional. >>>> >>>> How do I lay out (a)? Should I include the patch verbatim first (wit= h >>>> proper From: and Signed-off-by: lines) and then modify it in a small >>>> followup, or squash those two and... what? :) >> I am missing context here. The referenced patch is on qom-next already >> and will thus be in my upcoming PULL (today or tomorrow) unless someon= e >> comments on that patch, cc'ing me, that there's an error. Feel free to >> cherry-pick from there but do not squash into random series please. >> >> I don't understand what < 0 checks you are talking about, lacking time >> to go through this QIDL patch series ATM. >=20 > The uintXX visitors do not fail if you pass a negative value. I'm fine > with including the patch with the small bug and fixing it as a > follow-up, there's plenty of time before 1.2. With a view to your qdev patch converting to those visitors I think we should fix up Michael's patch in my queue before we use it for x86 CPU and qdev. Laszlo, can you send me a patch? Then I'll defer sending out the qom-next PULL. Thanks, Andreas --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=F6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=FCrnbe= rg