From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=60499 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pdrb3-0004ai-4z for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:54:14 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pdrb1-00061K-H7 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:54:12 -0500 Received: from sj-iport-5.cisco.com ([171.68.10.87]:4680) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pdrb1-00060s-Cr for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 14 Jan 2011 16:54:11 -0500 Message-ID: <4D30C5FF.90805@cisco.com> Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2011 14:54:07 -0700 From: David Ahern MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/11] config: settings from default-configs need to be included in header files References: <1295032341-6926-1-git-send-email-daahern@cisco.com> <1295032341-6926-3-git-send-email-daahern@cisco.com> <4D30B10A.20302@cisco.com> <4D30B650.9020703@cisco.com> <4D30BA59.4030204@cisco.com> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Blue Swirl Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On 01/14/11 14:36, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Fri, Jan 14, 2011 at 9:04 PM, David Ahern wrote: >> >> >> On 01/14/11 13:57, Blue Swirl wrote: >>>>> That's OK, but the correct fix is to change the design of the machine >>>>> model to something more advanced where the unwanted objects are simply >>>>> not linked in, without any changes to board code. This is not so >>>>> trivial and also many devices are not architecturally clean yet. >>>> >>>> A lot of changes are need to obtain that goal, and I am not the right >>>> person to do them. Until that ideal design can be developed and >>>> implemented why not take a small patch that fixes the existing design? >>>> It's not a major change -- a very small one actually (4 files, 13 lines >>>> modified). >>> >>> So far the approach has been to make changes only in line with that goal. >> >> That's a shame. >> >> I'll collapse the patch series and maintain it locally then. > > Patches 1, 5, 10, and 11 still look fine to me. Fine by me. The more you take, the less I have to carry locally. Sounds like patch 1 should be Stefan's patch since it pre-dates what I sent. David