[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH 00/53] acpi: refactor error prone build_header() and packed s
Michael S. Tsirkin
Re: [PATCH 00/53] acpi: refactor error prone build_header() and packed structures usage in ACPI tables
Mon, 5 Jul 2021 14:00:51 -0400
On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 09:56:18AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 10:47:20 -0400
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 05:17:24AM -0400, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > > Highlights:
> > > * drop pointer arithmetic in ACPI tables code
> > > * use endian agnostic API
> > > * simplifies review of tables. /in most cases just line by line
> > > comparision with spec/
> > A hue amount of work, thank you!
> > To make it easier to merge, how about splitting it up a bit?
> > E.g. I think first 10-11 patches make sense on their own, right?
> I think you've meant 01-11 patches, and answer is yes, it's in-depended
> of actual ACPI refactoring as was mentioned is cover letter, see below.
> > >
> > > Series also includes optional qtest patches that add missing acpi
> > > tests for tables that I'm touching to verify conversion changes.
> > > That includes an alternative build time based impl. of
> > > qtest_has_accel() API. So if we start bike-shedding this qtest_has_accel()
> > > we can safely drop all tests included, till the time discussion settles
> > > and some form of a qtest_has_accel() is merged, at which point I'd respin
> > > depended tests.
> it's ok to split tests into a separate series if that's what you prefer.
Let's start with a smaller series that still makes sense.
I'll merge that we'll look at the next chunk.