[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Introduce CanoKey QEMU
From: |
Hongren (Zenithal) Zheng |
Subject: |
Re: [PATCH v4 0/6] Introduce CanoKey QEMU |
Date: |
Tue, 22 Mar 2022 15:18:02 +0800 |
On Fri, Mar 04, 2022 at 11:51:19AM +0100, Gerd Hoffmann wrote:
> On Sat, Feb 12, 2022 at 09:29:47PM +0800, Hongren (Zenithal) Zheng wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > Is there any further feedback on this patch set.
>
> Sorry for the looong delay, I'm rather busy with edk2.
Fully understandable. There is also delay on my side, sorry for that
too.
>
> Tried to queue up this, noticed it breaks the build in case the
> canokey library is not installed.
Yes, this is my fault. I forgot to put `softmmu_ss.add(canokey)`
inside a `if canokey.found()` conditional check.
I've fixed it with
https://gitlab.com/ZenithalHourlyRate/qemu/-/commit/5d8604c70abefc8146dbb4f7836f3215bc9df966
which will be contained in v5.
>
> I'd suggest to run the patch series through the qemu gitlab CI
> before sending out v5.
I have gone through qemu gitlab CI and the result is in
https://gitlab.com/ZenithalHourlyRate/qemu/-/pipelines/497317417
Except check-dco and check-patch (I only generate Signed-off-by line
when `git format-patch`), other failed checks are "allowed to fail" and
I've checked the log, these failures are about Debian RISC-V packages
instead of qemu itself.
Is this appropriate for sending out v5?
By the way, we are planning to separate libcanokey-qemu.so
from canokey-core to a dedicated repo at
https://github.com/canokeys/canokey-qemu
(not done yet), which would result in changes in documentation.
I will contain these changes in v5 once we are done.
>
> take care,
> Gerd
>
Regards,
Hongren