qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 39/39] tests: Add ivshmem qtest


From: Andreas Färber
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 39/39] tests: Add ivshmem qtest
Date: Fri, 26 Jun 2015 17:53:54 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.7.0

Hi,

Please don't use HTML mails, that breaks quoting as you can see below.

Am 26.06.2015 um 17:27 schrieb Marc-André Lureau:
> On Fri, Jun 26, 2015 at 5:08 PM, Andreas Färber <address@hidden
> <mailto:address@hidden>> wrote:
> 
> 
>     For the second time within days you're posting a patch for something
>     that's been on the list already... The commit message above is entirely
> 
> 
> Sorry which patch are you refering to?

This one vs. my http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/336367/

And my "[PATCH for-2.3? 0/7] tests: Fix TCG make test" series vs.
your http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/487719/

> Is it wrong to repost a old patch and adding, while adding signoff and
> modifications?
> (what I just did in this series for David patches)

"contrib: add ivshmem client and server" looks (formally) okay except
for the final [...], which should go before your Signed-off-by.

That's not what you've done here though, as I complained. You did not
ask me about the state of my patch either before you posted this.

> 
>     empty, and at least this patch is not carrying any form of change log
>     either. You seem to add more tests than I did at the time, but that
>     still does not warrant dropping previous authorship info (Signed-off-by,
>     From, copyright).
> 
> 
> Sorry, I will try to describe the tests in the commit log (I thought
> they where already
> self-explanatory, but commit comments is always nice anyway)
> 
> Tbh, your patch was just launching one instance of qemu with ivshmem. If you
> look at the one I proposed, you'll notice that it is completely
> different: I don't think your
> signoff or copyright should be added here.

Well, I disagree. Extending a test case does not give you the right to
replace SUSE with Red Hat. Makes it look like an NIH problem.

Also, see the discussion on my RFC: CONFIG_LINUX is wrong here. It would
need to depend on KVM/eventfd, and for that there is no easy config
option available here, which stopped my patch at the time.

Regards,
Andreas

-- 
SUSE Linux GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Felix Imendörffer, Jane Smithard, Dilip Upmanyu, Graham Norton; HRB
21284 (AG Nürnberg)



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]