From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:53651) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WX81j-0005sd-J8 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 07:47:52 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WX81e-0004T0-PO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 07:47:47 -0400 Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:50947) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WX81e-0004Sg-Gc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Apr 2014 07:47:42 -0400 From: Juan Quintela In-Reply-To: (Peter Maydell's message of "Mon, 7 Apr 2014 12:00:10 +0100") References: <1396840915-10384-1-git-send-email-quintela@redhat.com> <1396840915-10384-3-git-send-email-quintela@redhat.com> Date: Mon, 07 Apr 2014 13:47:38 +0200 Message-ID: <8738hpbbtx.fsf@elfo.mitica> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 02/97] savevm: Remove all the unneded version_minimum_id_old (Massive) Reply-To: quintela@redhat.com List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Peter Maydell Cc: QEMU Developers Peter Maydell wrote: > On 7 April 2014 04:20, Juan Quintela wrote: >> After previous Peter patch, they are redundant. This way we don't asign them >> except when needed. Once there, there were lots of case where the ".fields" >> indentation was wrong: >> >> .fields = (VMStateField []) { >> and >> .fields = (VMStateField []) { >> >> Change all the combinations to: >> >> .fields = (VMStateField[]){ >> >> The biggest problem (appart of aesthetics) was that checkpatch complained >> when we copy&pasted the code from one place to another. >> >> 211 files changed, 289 insertions(+), 621 deletions(-) > > I'm really not a fan of this kind of single patch that > touches a huge number of files at once. They're basically > impossible to review and they introduce the possibility > of conflicts between submaintainer tree changes and the > big patch. There's no reason to have all these changes > in a single patch -- I'd much rather see one patch per > subsystem sent to the relevant submaintainers, plus > one for all the unmaintained stuff which can go via > the migration tree. If you say how to split, I am all for it. But remomeber that all this changes go inside VMSTateDescription descriptions, touch nothing else outside of that. And that is not something that is touched a lot to have lots of conflicts. My problem with leaving things as are, is that people continue to copy from the ones that still use the old system/format :-( Later, Juan.