Am 06.06.2012 15:03, schrieb Laszlo Ersek: > On 06/05/12 23:13, Paolo Bonzini wrote: > >> There is one small mistake that needs to be addressed in a v2, so it >> would be great if you could use the int*_t visitors to avoid >> complicating the code with range checks. > > OK so this is what I see: > > (a) add < 0 checks to <http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/150427/> 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. Regards, Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg