"Kővágó Zoltán" <dirty.ice...@gmail.com> writes: > 2015-09-03 17:07 keltezéssel, Eric Blake írta: >> On 09/03/2015 04:15 AM, Gerd Hoffmann wrote: >>> On Fr, 2015-08-21 at 17:36 +0200, Kővágó, Zoltán wrote: >>>> This patch series adds support to multiple audio backends. Afterwards I >>>> add support to multiple backends. Audio fronteds gain a new audiodev >>>> option to specify the id of the audiodev to use. The audiodev= option >>>> is required, unless you use the old environment variable based >>>> configuration, in that case it must not used (and you can't use multiple >>>> backends). >>>> >>>> Finally I also make mixeng usage optional, it can save us some useless >>>> format converting when not needed. Also makes easier to support formats >>>> currently not supported by qemu (as only the backend has to support it, >>>> not the mixeng). >>>> >>>> For easier testing pull https://github.com/DirtYiCE/qemu.git tag >>>> audio-multi-v2. >>>> >>>> Please review. >>> >>> Adding qapi & net folks to Cc. Ping. >>> >>> How to go forward with the QAPI bits in this series (Patches 1-9)? >>> Patch #1 got reviews from block folks. Patch #3 has a comment from >>> Eduardo pending. What about the other ones? Fine as-is? I remember >>> from the pre-2.4 freeze discussions that there at least was agreement >>> that flattening the qapi structs is the way to go. >> >> Still on my list of patches to review (seems to be a rather large list, >> sadly). I should get to it before Monday. >> >>> >>> I'd prefer if the qapi maintainers can pick up and merge these patches. >>> But I can also merge them via audio queue if I get reviews from the qapi >>> maintainers. >> >> I'll leave it up to Markus on which tree is better for the qapi patches >> to go through. >> > > Okay, I've rebased the patches to master and applied (some of) the > changes suggested by Eric. Since it looks like there are still some > problems with the qapi parts, it may be better if I split out the qapi > patches into a separate series, and go back to the audio patches when > the qapi bits are merged. Should I go ahead?
Given the size of this series, splitting it up into separately reviewable parts sounds like an excellent idea.