From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:51610) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZXlDC-00063B-S6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 03:15:08 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZXlD9-0006Rq-Ng for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 03:15:02 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:39831) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ZXlD9-0006Rh-IX for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 04 Sep 2015 03:14:59 -0400 From: Markus Armbruster References: <1441290623-13631-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <1441290623-13631-30-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <55E8B0D0.4000008@redhat.com> Date: Fri, 04 Sep 2015 09:14:56 +0200 In-Reply-To: <55E8B0D0.4000008@redhat.com> (Eric Blake's message of "Thu, 3 Sep 2015 14:42:56 -0600") Message-ID: <8737yuirkf.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH RFC v4 29/32] qapi: Pseudo-type '**' is now unused, drop it List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Eric Blake Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com Eric Blake writes: > On 09/03/2015 08:30 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> 'gen': false needs to stay for now, because netdev_add is still using >> it. >> >> Signed-off-by: Markus Armbruster >> Reviewed-by: Eric Blake >> --- > >> +++ b/tests/Makefile >> @@ -228,7 +228,7 @@ check-qapi-schema-y := $(addprefix tests/qapi-schema/, \ >> bad-type-dict.json double-data.json unknown-expr-key.json \ >> redefined-type.json redefined-command.json redefined-builtin.json \ >> redefined-event.json command-int.json bad-data.json event-max.json \ >> - type-bypass.json type-bypass-no-gen.json type-bypass-bad-gen.json \ >> + type-bypass-bad-gen.json \ >> args-invalid.json \ >> args-array-empty.json args-array-unknown.json args-int.json \ >> args-unknown.json args-member-unknown.json args-member-array.json \ > > Not for this patch, but we aren't very consistent on any form of sorting > or line length in this section. It might be nicer if it were one test > per line (lots more line continuations) and/or alphabetical order. If > that sounds nice, then it's a trivial patch to add in as one of the > followups after this series lands. Sorting: yes, please! One per line: meh.