From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:40682) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1viA-0001mV-B4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 09:36:15 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1vi9-000194-Jk for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 02 Nov 2016 09:36:14 -0400 Date: Wed, 2 Nov 2016 14:36:03 +0100 From: Kevin Wolf Message-ID: <20161102133603.GH6182@noname.redhat.com> References: <1477970211-25754-1-git-send-email-jsnow@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <1477970211-25754-1-git-send-email-jsnow@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v2 0/3] atapi: classify read_cd as conditionally returning data List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: John Snow Cc: qemu-block@nongnu.org, hpoussin@reactos.org, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Am 01.11.2016 um 04:16 hat John Snow geschrieben: > v2: > - Actually applied the changes this time ... > - And added a test to the AHCI suite... > - ...Which revealed a few small issues in the suite. > > The AHCI test should be sufficient in terms of general proof > for ATAPI regardless of the HBA used. As I commented, I think patch 3 includes a silent bug fix, so maybe check whether you agree with my understanding of the code and consider to make this more explicit. In any case, I think it's still correct: Reviewed-by: Kevin Wolf