Thanks for your reply! Owning to cultural difference， I used to regard “RFC” as a way of show modest...
I will apply your suggestion in v3.
Best,
Su Hang
"Eric Blake" <eblake@redhat.com>wrote:
> On 04/04/2018 10:19 AM, Su Hang wrote:
> > These series of patchs implement Intel Hexadecimal File loader and
> > add QTest testcase to verify the correctness of Loader.
> >
> > v1: Basic version.
> > v2: Replace `do{}while(cond);` block with `for(;;)` block to
> > suppress code style complain.
>
> Better than rewriting code to work around a false positive is to fix the
> false positive in the first place. And I see you have a patch proposed
> for that, but it was still marked RFC; unfortunately, during freeze,
> patches that are marked RFC tend to be deferred in favor of patches
> marked 'for-2.12' (RFC means the patch may be incomplete, and there's no
> rush to get an incomplete patch in before the release, after all). I'll
> reply on that patch, now that it's got my attention; but for this
> particular series, I'm more comfortable leaving the review to the
> maintainer, modulo one comment:
>
> >
> > Su Hang (2):
> > Implement .hex file loader
> > Add QTest testcase for the Intel Hexadecimal Object File Loader.
> >
> > hw/arm/boot.c | 9 +-
> > hw/core/loader.c | 280 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> > include/hw/loader.h | 17 +++
> > tests/Makefile.include | 2 +
> > tests/hexloader-test.c | 56 ++++++++++
> > tests/test.hex | 11 ++
> > 6 files changed, 374 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
> > create mode 100644 tests/hexloader-test.c
> > create mode 100644 tests/test.hex
>
> This creates new files that are not covered by MAINTAINERS. Please be
> sure to patch MAINTAINERS as well in your v3.
>
> --
> Eric Blake, Principal Software Engineer
> Red Hat, Inc. +1-919-301-3266
> Virtualization: qemu.org | libvirt.org
>