[Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] random qapi cleanups

Eric Blake posted 5 patches 6 years, 9 months ago
Patches applied successfully (tree, apply log)
git fetch https://github.com/patchew-project/qemu tags/patchew/20170714190827.4083-1-eblake@redhat.com
Test FreeBSD passed
Test checkpatch passed
Test docker passed
Test s390x passed
There is a newer version of this series
include/qapi/visitor.h              | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
tests/libqtest.h                    | 23 ++++++++++------
tests/test-hmp.c                    |  4 +--
tests/test-qobject-output-visitor.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
4 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] random qapi cleanups
Posted by Eric Blake 6 years, 9 months ago
Trying to flush some of the random patches I have lying around
locally.  Some of these may have been posted to the list before,
perhaps as part of larger series, but I didn't bother to research
which parts came from where.

I'm not sure if this is in time for softfreeze; and if not, I'm
not sure how much is appropriate during freeze vs. being deferred
to 2.11.

Eric Blake (5):
  qapi: Further enhance visitor virtual walk doc example
  tests: Enhance qobject output to cover partial visit
  qapi: Visitor documentation tweak
  qtest: Avoid passing raw strings through hmp()
  qtest: Document calling conventions

 include/qapi/visitor.h              | 55 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
 tests/libqtest.h                    | 23 ++++++++++------
 tests/test-hmp.c                    |  4 +--
 tests/test-qobject-output-visitor.c | 46 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-
 4 files changed, 96 insertions(+), 32 deletions(-)

-- 
2.9.4


Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 0/5] random qapi cleanups
Posted by Markus Armbruster 6 years, 9 months ago
Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com> writes:

> Trying to flush some of the random patches I have lying around
> locally.  Some of these may have been posted to the list before,
> perhaps as part of larger series, but I didn't bother to research
> which parts came from where.
>
> I'm not sure if this is in time for softfreeze; and if not, I'm
> not sure how much is appropriate during freeze vs. being deferred
> to 2.11.

A quick peek makes me think this series could in early during freeze,
because it consists of documentation fixes, test enhancements and really
simple bug fixes.