Re: [kvm-unit-tests PATCH 00/18] bunch of mostly trivial patches

[Andrew Jones <drjones@redhat.com>]

On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 11:54:22AM -0500, Andrew Jones wrote:
> On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 05:38:38PM +0100, Paolo Bonzini wrote:
> > 
> > 
> > On 06/11/2015 01:24, Andrew Jones wrote:
> > > Many of these patches were posted once. Some weren't, but anyway
> > > almost everything is pretty trivial. I'd like to get these in, or
> > > at least get definitive nacks on them (and then drop them) in order
> > > to clean my queue before more patches (coming from Alex Bennée and
> > > Chistopher are reposted).
> > > 
> > > All patches also available here
> > > https://github.com/rhdrjones/kvm-unit-tests/commits/queue
> > 
> > I applied all of these 
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> > except 1 (question asked) and 14/15/16/17 (not sure I like the idea).

Hi Paolo,

Any more thoughts on these? I parsed "not sure I like" as "still
thinking". Or should I parse it as a "no" and drop them from my
queue?

> 
> At one point I recall that you liked the uapi patches, although I'm
> not 100% married to it myself, as it does add a new dependency. I'm
> open to suggestions.

Another argument for the uapi patches is that we're working on adding
support for the mach-virt pcie host bridge in order to use pci-testdev
in arm unit tests. We'll need to either use this series or import 
pci[_regs].h for that.

> 
> I'm not sure what you're opposed to wrt to map files (patch 15). They
> aren't 100% necessary, but don't really hurt either to generate either.
> I won't fight for them though.

I'm OK with dropping this one. The map files were useful to me once,
but as rare as they would be, I agree cluttering things with them
isn't a great idea.

> 
> The TEST= patch is quite useful. I find it annoying to always have
> to modify a makefile whenever I throw together a few line test. It
> may not be for everyone, but then it doesn't do anything when it's
> not used, so it shouldn't hurt that it exists. I would agree that
> maybe the patch should also document it though, if you argued that.
> Or, that fact that it's undocumented, and does nothing when not used,
> could be an argument to just commit it :-)

I still like this one. I'll buy you a beer for it :-)

Thanks,
drew