From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:35001) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VtzUV-00037P-RL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 07:47:51 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VtzUO-0003zP-Ib for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 07:47:43 -0500 Received: from cantor2.suse.de ([195.135.220.15]:58779 helo=mx2.suse.de) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1VtzUO-0003yw-CJ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 20 Dec 2013 07:47:36 -0500 Message-ID: <52B43C64.6080408@suse.de> Date: Fri, 20 Dec 2013 13:47:32 +0100 From: =?ISO-8859-15?Q?Andreas_F=E4rber?= MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1387537713-18619-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> In-Reply-To: <1387537713-18619-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [RFC] test: QOM interface casting List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Igor Mammedov , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Peter Maydell , Peter Crosthwaite , Eduardo Habkost , armbru@redhat.com, anthony@codemonkey.ws, pbonzini@redhat.com Hi, Am 20.12.2013 12:08, schrieb Igor Mammedov: > --- > tests/Makefile | 3 + > tests/check-qom-interface.c | 102 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++= ++++++++ > 2 files changed, 105 insertions(+), 0 deletions(-) > create mode 100644 tests/check-qom-interface.c Apart from the style issues and typos that the two Peter's have pointed out, I'd like to point out that this is missing Signed-off-by and commit message. In particular, is this a test that should be committed alongside the interface cast fixes or anything else that I have queued? Or just to improve overall test coverage? Either way I'm in favor of having them. Concerning PMM's comment, don't we already have a qdev properties unit test from Eduardo where we might share QOM dependencies via some Makefile variable? Grouping the check-* tests also makes sense to me than just adding at the bottom. Anything in particular that you'd like comments on, this being an RFC? 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