From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:48442) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ScGwx-0003nh-DQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:11:09 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ScGwk-0000HW-UT for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:11:02 -0400 Received: from mail-pz0-f45.google.com ([209.85.210.45]:51476) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1ScGwk-0000H6-Lb for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 10:10:50 -0400 Received: by dadv2 with SMTP id v2so9604203dad.4 for ; Wed, 06 Jun 2012 07:10:48 -0700 (PDT) Sender: Paolo Bonzini Message-ID: <4FCF64E4.50701@redhat.com> Date: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:10:44 +0200 From: Paolo Bonzini MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1337683555-13301-1-git-send-email-lersek@redhat.com> <4FCE7684.2070206@redhat.com> <4FCF5512.9000704@redhat.com> <4FCF5BA8.3010201@suse.de> In-Reply-To: <4FCF5BA8.3010201@suse.de> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= Cc: Laszlo Ersek , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Michael Roth Il 06/06/2012 15:31, Andreas Färber ha scritto: >> > >> > (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. >> > >> > 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. The uintXX visitors do not fail if you pass a negative value. I'm fine with including the patch with the small bug and fixing it as a follow-up, there's plenty of time before 1.2. Paolo