From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:44892) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ScGKq-0006nR-3v for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:31:49 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ScGKg-0007Ch-Hv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:31:39 -0400 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:46849 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ScGKg-0007CU-BY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 09:31:30 -0400 Message-ID: <4FCF5BA8.3010201@suse.de> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 15:31:20 +0200 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1337683555-13301-1-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com> <4FCE7684.2070206@redhat.com> <4FCF5512.9000704@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <4FCF5512.9000704@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/16] introduce OptsVisitor, rebase -net/-netdev parsing List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: Paolo Bonzini , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Michael Roth Am 06.06.2012 15:03, schrieb Laszlo Ersek: > On 06/05/12 23:13, Paolo Bonzini wrote: >=20 >> There is one small mistake that needs to be addressed in a v2, so it >> would be great if you could use the int*_t visitors to avoid >> complicating the code with range checks. >=20 > OK so this is what I see: >=20 > (a) add < 0 checks to and > include it in the series, > (b) make all Netdev integer types as strict as possible, remove > superfluous checks, > (c) render NetLegacy::name optional. >=20 > How do I lay out (a)? Should I include the patch verbatim first (with > proper From: and Signed-off-by: lines) and then modify it in a small > followup, or squash those two and... what? :) I am missing context here. The referenced patch is on qom-next already and will thus be in my upcoming PULL (today or tomorrow) unless someone comments on that patch, cc'ing me, that there's an error. Feel free to cherry-pick from there but do not squash into random series please. I don't understand what < 0 checks you are talking about, lacking time to go through this QIDL patch series ATM. Regards, Andreas --=20 SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 N=FCrnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imend=F6rffer; HRB 16746 AG N=FCrnbe= rg