[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 0/3] SMBIOS cleanup round

From: Markus Armbruster
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v4 0/3] SMBIOS cleanup round
Date: Mon, 26 May 2014 08:30:48 +0200
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.3 (gnu/linux)

"Gabriel L. Somlo" <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:00:12PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote:
>> > 1. There's a fairly complex setup (create a boot disk, start the
>> > guest, loop around waiting for the bios to finish booting, watch
>> > when your disk-based boot loader runs, etc.) before starting to
>> > examine the guest memory for the presence and correctness of the acpi
>> > tables.
>> > 
>> > Would it make sense to  rename this file to something like e.g.
>> > tests/biostables-test.c, and add checks for smbios to the already
>> > started and booted guest ?
>> > 
>> > If not, I'd have to replicate most of your test-harness code,
>> > which is almost half of acpi-test.c. That shouldn't be hard (you
>> > already did the heavy lifting on that one), but I intuitively dislike
>> > multiple cut'n'paste clones of significant code fragments :)
>> Sure, fine.
> So I was about to send a patch with acpi-test.c renamed to
> bios-tables-test.c, but the patch is basically removing all of
> acpi-test.c, and creating a new file bios-tables-test.c.

Err, isn't that what a rename does?

> Do you have a better way to rename the file first, and then I can
> send a patch against it ? Or should we give up on renaming it
> altogether ? Or should I just bite the bullet and cut'n'paste your
> test harness into a new file specific to smbios ?
> It's not particularly important to me which way we go -- I want to do
> the right thing, whatever you decide that is :)

Did you rename with git-mv?  Did you diff with rename detection on?  See
diff.renames in git-config(1).


reply via email to

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