Am 06.06.2012 16:10, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > Il 06/06/2012 15:31, Andreas Färber ha scritto: >>>> >>>> (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. > > The uintXX visitors do not fail if you pass a negative value. I'm fine > with including the patch with the small bug and fixing it as a > follow-up, there's plenty of time before 1.2.
With a view to your qdev patch converting to those visitors I think we should fix up Michael's patch in my queue before we use it for x86 CPU and qdev. Laszlo, can you send me a patch? Then I'll defer sending out the qom-next PULL. Thanks, Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
