On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 01:42:28PM +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote: > [Note cc: Andreas] > > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > > > On Fri, Aug 16, 2013 at 03:18:27PM +0200, arm...@redhat.com wrote: > >> From: Markus Armbruster <arm...@redhat.com> > >> > >> This gets rid of one of the last get_param_value() users, makes > >> multiple -smbios work sanely, cleans up the gross side effect in > >> qemu_uuid_parse(), and more. Topped off with a little feature in the > >> last patch. > >> > >> v2: Rebase, only last patch had conflicts > > > > OK my thinking at this point is: > > patches 1-6 are ready > > Any objections? > > patch 7 - I would prefer some way to explicitly set > > default smbios manufacturer/version in machine type > > and set these from machine type, instead of > > the smbios_type1_defaults boolean. > > Are you asking for a new QEMUMachine member holding manufacturer (either > "Bochs", "QEMU" or null), and new members holding product and version > (either null or same value as existing members desc and version, at > least now)?
Yes, I think we can live with this one. Though I would really prefer a property of some device. > Or just for moving smbios_type1_defaults from init function > into QEMUMachine? > > > Would you like > > - me to apply 1-6 and keep working on 7? > > - wait for you to repost v3? > > - look for another maintainer to take patchset as is (if someone > > cares to, I won't object)? > > Waiting for another maintainer after waiting >2 months for *any* > maintainer doesn't strike me as a good idea %-} > > I'm totally fine with you taking just PATCH 1-5. PATCH 6, however, > should not be applied without PATCH 7. Andreas doesn't like PATCH 6, > and overruling his dislike without an actual use for it (which comes > only in PATCH 7) isn't nice. I missed this fact, thanks for pointing it out. So please arrive at consensus with Andreas re PATCH 6.