From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:59000) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b4lMC-0001jG-Gf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 May 2016 04:37:01 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b4lM7-0005A5-CV for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:59 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:59021) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1b4lM7-00059v-7M for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 May 2016 04:36:55 -0400 Received: from int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com (int-mx14.intmail.prod.int.phx2.redhat.com [10.5.11.27]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by mx1.redhat.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7F7D1C05B1C7 for ; Mon, 23 May 2016 08:36:54 +0000 (UTC) Date: Mon, 23 May 2016 14:06:51 +0530 From: Amit Shah Message-ID: <20160523083651.GD24417@grmbl.mre> References: <1462380558-2030-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com> <572A2C7D.7070501@redhat.com> <87mvo3z5zr.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <87mvo3z5zr.fsf@dusky.pond.sub.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/2] migration: Move qjson.[ch] to migration/, clean up List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Markus Armbruster Cc: Eric Blake , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, dgilbert@redhat.com, quintela@redhat.com On (Fri) 06 May 2016 [15:11:04], Markus Armbruster wrote: > Eric Blake writes: > > > On 05/04/2016 10:49 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote: > >> qjson.[ch] is a JSON writer used by migration. Eric proposed to > >> replace it by common code in his "Add qapi-to-JSON and clone visitors" > >> series. David's review led to the conclusion that migration would > >> prefer to keep its own JSON writer, to better serve its requirements. > >> PATCH 1 move it to its proper place, and explains why it exists in a > >> bit more detail. PATCH 2 simplifies it a bit. > > > > Whose tree would this go in through? > > Migration is the natural choice. Would that inconvenience you? > > > At any rate, series: > > Reviewed-by: Eric Blake > > but see nit on 1/2 > > Perhaps the maintainer can add the commit hashes on merge. I'm doing that. Thanks, Amit