|
From: | Philippe Mathieu-Daudé |
Subject: | Re: [PULL v3 2/6] tests/9pfs: change qtest name prefix to synth |
Date: | Wed, 21 Oct 2020 08:15:55 +0200 |
User-agent: | Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.3.1 |
Hi Cristian, On 10/20/20 1:54 PM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
On Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2020 12:00:57 CEST Greg Kurz wrote:On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:43:18 +0200 Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com> wrote:On Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2020 09:36:10 CEST Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:On 10/8/20 8:34 PM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:All existing 9pfs test cases are using the 'synth' fs driver so far, which means they are not accessing real files, but a purely simulated (in RAM only) file system. Let's make this clear by changing the prefix of the individual qtest case names from 'fs/' to 'synth/'. That way they'll be easily distinguishable from upcoming new 9pfs test cases supposed to be using a different fs driver. Signed-off-by: Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com> Message-Id: <e04e75acb849b085c6d6320b2433a15fa935bcff.1602182956.git.qemu_oss@crud eby te.com> Signed-off-by: Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com>Harmless, but don't need to sign twice ;)Ah, I thought that's the common way, as Greg's PRs contained 2 SOBs as well, i.e. I thought this was intended to outline the patch author and submaintainer were the same person. BTW I actually did not explicitly add the 2nd SOB. It was rather added by the patchwork client automatically. So maybe it should be fixed in the client to detect an already existing SOB line? Or am missing something here?Yeah this is the reason why my sob appears twice on patches authored by me, and since this is harmless I never really investigated how to fix pwclient :)Well, I would usually offer my 'I can look at it' at this point, but I am reluctant this time as I assume it will end up as my recently suggested libqos patches where I did not get any response from the officially assigned maintainers; not even a simple 'nack'.
I was just watching your contributions and suggested an improvement because something in your new workflow seems mis-configured (other maintainers don't have this problem). I didn't asked you to fix a bug in a different tool. I apologize if I was unclear and you understood it this way. Regarding your issue with a different series, I suppose you already read: https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch#If_your_patch_seems_to_have_been_ignored and https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch#Return_the_favor You'll see that maintenance can be very time consuming, and we are overcrowded from time to time when there is rush. I doubt maintainers are ignoring your patches, as most of them try to do their best. You might help them by reviewing patches for them, so they have time to process your series. Regards, Phil.
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |