[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-block] [RFC PATCH 0/7] BlockBackends, nodes and guest devices

From: Kevin Wolf
Subject: Re: [Qemu-block] [RFC PATCH 0/7] BlockBackends, nodes and guest devices
Date: Tue, 12 Jul 2016 10:14:42 +0200
User-agent: Mutt/1.5.21 (2010-09-15)

Am 12.07.2016 um 02:13 hat John Snow geschrieben:
> No oxford comma in the subject? :)

It's already hard enough to keep the German comma rules straight and
avoid confusing the pre-reform rules with the post-reform ones. I don't
think I should bother with the comma rules of a language where even the
native speakers can't seem to agree. :-)

(But thanks, I wasn't aware that this disagreement even exists before
reading it up now.)

> On 06/23/2016 10:36 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote:
> 1-4: Reviewed-by: John Snow <address@hidden>
> 5: Looks good, pending discussion on the right thing to name "ID", but
> the patch itself looks perfectly cromulent.
> 6: Causes only a minor regression in 030 due to different error class
> names, but R-B otherwise.
> 7: No opinion. Looks sane mechanically but I don't know enough about
> core block properties to have a meaningful opinion. "ACK."


> For non-RFC, some new iotests would be good.

Anything specific you have in mind to be tested?

The problem with everything related to devices is that it requires
running a qemu process and most likely a specific machine type. But I
guess we can just skip some tests if we don't have the right binary.


reply via email to

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