From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:46452) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwogG-0000C4-Dq for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 07:05:12 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwogB-000710-Gp for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 07:05:08 -0400 Received: from mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com ([148.163.158.5]:49306 helo=mx0a-001b2d01.pphosted.com) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1bwogB-00070o-Bf for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 07:05:03 -0400 Received: from pps.filterd (m0098416.ppops.net [127.0.0.1]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com (8.16.0.17/8.16.0.17) with SMTP id u9JB3uJW134025 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 07:05:02 -0400 Received: from e06smtp06.uk.ibm.com (e06smtp06.uk.ibm.com [195.75.94.102]) by mx0b-001b2d01.pphosted.com with ESMTP id 265kv3w4an-1 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 07:05:01 -0400 Received: from localhost by e06smtp06.uk.ibm.com with IBM ESMTP SMTP Gateway: Authorized Use Only! Violators will be prosecuted for from ; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 12:04:59 +0100 Received: from b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06relay12.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.109.197]) by d06dlp02.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 93E34219006C for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 12:04:10 +0100 (BST) Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com [9.149.37.212]) by b06cxnps4075.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.9/8.14.9/NCO v10.0) with ESMTP id u9JB4rsw11272482 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 11:04:53 GMT Received: from d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by d06av01.portsmouth.uk.ibm.com (8.14.4/8.14.4/NCO v10.0 AVout) with ESMTP id u9JB4rTj021104 for ; Wed, 19 Oct 2016 05:04:53 -0600 References: <20161018105724.26520-1-pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161018105724.26520-3-pasic@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20161018132728.GH2190@work-vm> <20161018135426.GJ2190@work-vm> <20161018183228.GA22395@work-vm> From: Halil Pasic Date: Wed, 19 Oct 2016 13:04:53 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20161018183228.GA22395@work-vm> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Message-Id: <6e59d1a0-ec0c-2f23-e3d2-4c7a77c2b690@linux.vnet.ibm.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 2/4] tests/test-vmstate.c: prove VMStateField.start broken List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: "Dr. David Alan Gilbert" Cc: Amit Shah , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Guenther Hutzl On 10/18/2016 08:32 PM, Dr. David Alan Gilbert wrote: >> > "The idea is to remove .start support and this patch should >> > be reverted, as soon this happens, or even better just >> > dropped. If however dropping the support for .start encounters >> > resistance, this patch should prove useful in an unexpected >> > way." >> > >> > the patch is not intended for a merge. My preferred way of dealing >> > with this is to just pick (merge) the first and the last patch of the >> > series. The second patch is just to prove that we have a problem, >> > and it's effect is immediately reverted by the third patch as a >> > preparation for the forth one which removes the tested feature altogether. >> > >> > In my opinion the inclusion of a commented out test makes even less >> > sense if the tested feature is intended to be removed by the next >> > patch in the series. >> > >> > I think I was not clear enough when stating that this patch is >> > not intended for merging. Is there an established way to do >> > this? > I don't think there's any point in posting it like that as part > of a patch series; posting it as a separate test that fails or > something like that; but I don't think I've ever seen it done > like that inside a patch series where you expect some of it > to be picked up. > > Dave > I understand. I assumed cherry-picking the two relevant patches from the series would not be a problem here. I was wrong. Next time I will make sure to either do a separate failing test patch and and cross reference in the cover letters, or to first do the fix and then improve the test coverage so the bug does not come back. Should I send a v2 with the two questionable patches (the failing test and the revert of it) removed right away? Regards, Halil