| Message ID | 1396940651-10513-1-git-send-email-mjt@msgid.tls.msk.ru |
|---|---|
| State | New |
| Headers | show |
Thanks, and I will/should finish the left trivial patches within this week (2014-04-13) On 04/08/2014 03:04 PM, Michael Tokarev wrote: > From: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> > > When you ask for an accelerator not supported for your target, you get > a bogus "accelerator does not exist" message: > > $ qemu-system-arm -machine none,accel=kvm > KVM not supported for this target > "kvm" accelerator does not exist. > No accelerator found! > > Suppress it. > > Signed-off-by: Chen Gang <gang.chen.5i5j@gmail.com> > Reviewed-by: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> > Signed-off-by: Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> > --- > vl.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/vl.c b/vl.c > index 9975e5a..db9ea90 100644 > --- a/vl.c > +++ b/vl.c > @@ -2740,7 +2740,7 @@ static int configure_accelerator(QEMUMachine *machine) > if (!accel_list[i].available()) { > printf("%s not supported for this target\n", > accel_list[i].name); > - continue; > + break; > } > *(accel_list[i].allowed) = true; > ret = accel_list[i].init(machine); >
On 8 April 2014 08:04, Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> wrote: > And there's a series of 3 patches by Peter Maydell which adds casts > to uint* in a few places. Those are also quite simple and safe, even > with quite some disagreement about whenever this is necessary to > start with -- I mean the int128 change, the other changes are good. > At least this way we make it consistent with other parts of the code. I was not expecting those to go in for 2.0... thanks -- PMM
08.04.2014 12:10, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 8 April 2014 08:04, Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> wrote: >> And there's a series of 3 patches by Peter Maydell which adds casts >> to uint* in a few places. Those are also quite simple and safe, even >> with quite some disagreement about whenever this is necessary to >> start with -- I mean the int128 change, the other changes are good. >> At least this way we make it consistent with other parts of the code. > > I was not expecting those to go in for 2.0... Well. At least one of them is entirely safe (hw/ide/ahci.c). Another - xbzrle.c - looks okay, and even maybe fixing a bug. And this int128 thing is okay too, except that the whole thing is questionable as has been mentioned in that thread. I can prepare another pull request without xbzrle and int128 changes, or even without ahci change too, but I'm not sure it is worth the effort - I think everything is okay to go. I'll take your word for this. Thanks, /mjt
On 8 April 2014 09:52, Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> wrote: > Well. At least one of them is entirely safe (hw/ide/ahci.c). > Another - xbzrle.c - looks okay, and even maybe fixing a bug. > And this int128 thing is okay too, except that the whole thing > is questionable as has been mentioned in that thread. > > I can prepare another pull request without xbzrle and int128 changes, > or even without ahci change too, but I'm not sure it is worth the > effort - I think everything is okay to go. I'll take your word for this. Well, anything that goes in today is going to get at best two days of being tested before the release. To me that argues fairly strongly for not putting anything in unless it is fixing a genuine bug. thanks -- PMM
Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes: > On 8 April 2014 09:52, Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> wrote: >> Well. At least one of them is entirely safe (hw/ide/ahci.c). >> Another - xbzrle.c - looks okay, and even maybe fixing a bug. >> And this int128 thing is okay too, except that the whole thing >> is questionable as has been mentioned in that thread. >> >> I can prepare another pull request without xbzrle and int128 changes, >> or even without ahci change too, but I'm not sure it is worth the >> effort - I think everything is okay to go. I'll take your word for this. > > Well, anything that goes in today is going to get at best two > days of being tested before the release. To me that argues > fairly strongly for not putting anything in unless it is > fixing a genuine bug. Seconded.
08.04.2014 14:57, Markus Armbruster wrote: > Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> writes: > >> On 8 April 2014 09:52, Michael Tokarev <mjt@tls.msk.ru> wrote: >>> Well. At least one of them is entirely safe (hw/ide/ahci.c). >>> Another - xbzrle.c - looks okay, and even maybe fixing a bug. >>> And this int128 thing is okay too, except that the whole thing >>> is questionable as has been mentioned in that thread. >>> >>> I can prepare another pull request without xbzrle and int128 changes, >>> or even without ahci change too, but I'm not sure it is worth the >>> effort - I think everything is okay to go. I'll take your word for this. >> >> Well, anything that goes in today is going to get at best two >> days of being tested before the release. To me that argues >> fairly strongly for not putting anything in unless it is >> fixing a genuine bug. > > Seconded. -trivial does not fix bugs. Only documentation bugs, which does not met the above definition. So no -trivial patches for 2.0 anymore. Thanks, /mjt
This is the last-minute trivial-patches tree. We're very close to release now, and here are mostly doc/comment/identation fixes which are safe even at this stage of the release process. There's also addition of the coverity model which does not affect code in any way. And there's a series of 3 patches by Peter Maydell which adds casts to uint* in a few places. Those are also quite simple and safe, even with quite some disagreement about whenever this is necessary to start with -- I mean the int128 change, the other changes are good. At least this way we make it consistent with other parts of the code. Please consider pulling/applying. Thanks, /mjt The following changes since commit 466e6e9d13d56bbb6da1d2396d7d6347df483af0: target-i386: reorder fields in cpu/msr_hyperv_hypercall subsection (2014-04-05 10:49:05 +0100) are available in the git repository at: git://git.corpit.ru/qemu.git tags/trivial-patches-2014-04-08 for you to fetch changes up to cd791dd1090680dba795940fe5ef80699102ae0b: Fix grammar in comment (2014-04-08 10:56:10 +0400) ---------------------------------------------------------------- trivial patches for 2014-04-08 ---------------------------------------------------------------- Amos Kong (1): qga: trivial fix for unclear documentation of guest-set-time Chen Gang (1): vl: Report accelerator not supported for target more nicely Hani Benhabiles (1): net: Report error when device / hub combo is not found. Michael Tokarev (1): doc: grammify "allows to" Paolo Bonzini (1): scripts: add sample model file for Coverity Scan Peter Maydell (4): configure: Fix indentation of help for --enable/disable-debug-info hw/ide/ahci.c: Avoid shift left into sign bit int128.h: Avoid undefined behaviours involving signed arithmetic xbzrle.c: Avoid undefined behaviour with signed arithmetic Stefan Weil (2): configure: Remove redundant message for -Werror Fix grammar in comment configure | 5 +- hw/i2c/smbus_eeprom.c | 2 +- hw/ide/ahci.c | 4 +- include/qemu/int128.h | 4 +- net/net.c | 4 +- qemu-doc.texi | 2 +- qemu-options.hx | 5 +- qga/commands-posix.c | 2 +- qga/qapi-schema.json | 14 ++-- scripts/coverity-model.c | 183 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ vl.c | 2 +- xbzrle.c | 8 +- 12 files changed, 211 insertions(+), 24 deletions(-) create mode 100644 scripts/coverity-model.c