From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=50162 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1Pe8ps-0005lq-RW for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 11:18:41 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pe8pr-00081H-F4 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 11:18:40 -0500 Received: from mail-wy0-f173.google.com ([74.125.82.173]:58810) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Pe8pr-000813-Av for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 11:18:39 -0500 Received: by wyg36 with SMTP id 36so4051862wyg.4 for ; Sat, 15 Jan 2011 08:18:34 -0800 (PST) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <4D31C8D5.5080205@redhat.com> Date: Sat, 15 Jan 2011 17:18:29 +0100 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 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; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH 02/11] config: settings from default-configs need to be included in header files List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Blue Swirl Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, David Ahern On 01/14/2011 10:36 PM, 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. Patch 1 is wrong, please apply http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/77021/ instead. Paolo