Sorry, this was sent in error when I did the git send-email for the folder.
This was before I broke each patch down (after looking at the Qemu
submission guidance). This is my first time sending a patch in this way, so
thanks for the understanding. This patch can be ignored, as they are all
covered elsewhere.

-Joel Upham

On Wed, Jun 21, 2023 at 7:10 AM David Hildenbrand <da...@redhat.com> wrote:

> On 20.06.23 19:24, Joel Upham wrote:
>
> Inexpressive patch subject and non-existant patch desciption. I have no
> clue what this is supposed to do, except that it involes q35 and xen ()I
> guess ?.
>
> > ---
> >   hw/acpi/ich9.c                |   22 +-
> >   hw/acpi/pcihp.c               |    6 +-
> >   hw/core/machine.c             |   19 +
> >   hw/i386/pc_piix.c             |    3 +-
> >   hw/i386/pc_q35.c              |   39 +-
> >   hw/i386/xen/xen-hvm.c         |    7 +-
> >   hw/i386/xen/xen_platform.c    |   19 +-
> >   hw/isa/lpc_ich9.c             |   53 +-
> >   hw/isa/piix3.c                |    2 +-
> >   hw/pci-host/q35.c             |   28 +-
> >   hw/pci/pci.c                  |   17 +
> >   hw/xen/xen-host-pci-device.c  |  106 +++-
> >   hw/xen/xen-host-pci-device.h  |    6 +-
> >   hw/xen/xen_pt.c               |   49 +-
> >   hw/xen/xen_pt.h               |   19 +-
> >   hw/xen/xen_pt_config_init.c   | 1103 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
> >   include/hw/acpi/ich9.h        |    1 +
> >   include/hw/acpi/pcihp.h       |    2 +
> >   include/hw/boards.h           |    1 +
> >   include/hw/i386/pc.h          |    3 +
> >   include/hw/pci-host/q35.h     |    4 +-
> >   include/hw/pci/pci.h          |    3 +
> >   include/hw/southbridge/ich9.h |    1 +
> >   include/hw/xen/xen.h          |    4 +-
> >   qemu-options.hx               |    1 +
> >   softmmu/datadir.c             |    1 -
> >   softmmu/qdev-monitor.c        |    3 +-
> >   stubs/xen-hw-stub.c           |    4 +-
> >   28 files changed, 1395 insertions(+), 131 deletions(-)
> >
>
> Usually people refrain from reviewing such massive patches. Most
> probably this can be broken up into reviewable pieces.
>
> Was this supposed to be an RFC?
>
> --
> Cheers,
>
> David / dhildenb
>
>

Reply via email to