From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33054) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ya355-0000If-5l for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:11:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ya351-0007br-2R for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:11:51 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:57583) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ya350-0007bj-Ta for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 10:11:47 -0400 Message-ID: <55101F19.5070203@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 15:11:37 +0100 From: Laszlo Ersek MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <1426969430-14941-1-git-send-email-somlo@cmu.edu> <1426969430-14941-6-git-send-email-somlo@cmu.edu> <550FD374.80602@redhat.com> <20150323131951.GA20982@HEDWIG.INI.CMU.EDU> In-Reply-To: <20150323131951.GA20982@HEDWIG.INI.CMU.EDU> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] fw_cfg: insert fw_cfg file blobs via qemu cmdline List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Gabriel L. Somlo" Cc: matt.fleming@intel.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, rjones@redhat.com, jordan.l.justen@intel.com, "Gabriel L. Somlo" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, gleb@cloudius-systems.com, kraxel@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com On 03/23/15 14:19, Gabriel L. Somlo wrote: > On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:48:52AM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: >> >>> diff --git a/qemu-options.hx b/qemu-options.hx >>> index 319d971..138b9cd 100644 >>> --- a/qemu-options.hx >>> +++ b/qemu-options.hx >>> @@ -2668,6 +2668,17 @@ STEXI >>> @table @option >>> ETEXI >>> >>> +DEF("fw_cfg", HAS_ARG, QEMU_OPTION_fwcfg, >>> + "-fw_cfg name=,file=\n" >> >> I guess I should have pointed this out earlier -- you could have >> bracketed the "name=" part, to communicate that "name" is >> "implied_opt_name". >> >> Anyway, don't respin just because of this. > > Well, this *should* go in, aesthetics are important to me too :) > If I get more feedback, I'll work this into a v4 of the series. > > However, if this is it, and everything is OK otherwise, what's the > standard procedure for fixing just this one minor item ? Do I still > send out a v4, or is this something the maintainer ultimately applying > the patch would rather do themselves ? Depends on the exact maintainer picking up your series. ... Now good luck figuring out who that's going to be :) (I ran "scripts/get_maintainer.pl" on a squashed diff for this series. It named only Paolo, but for the wrong reason: "vl.c" matched "Main loop" from the MAINTAINERS file. fw_cfg has no dedicated owner, apparently.) Thanks Laszlo