[PATCH v4 0/4] qapi: Add detection for the 'savevm' fix for blockdev

Markus Armbruster posted 4 patches 4 years, 7 months ago
Test asan passed
Test FreeBSD passed
Test checkpatch passed
Test docker-mingw@fedora passed
Test docker-quick@centos7 passed
Test docker-clang@ubuntu failed
Patches applied successfully (tree, apply log)
git fetch https://github.com/patchew-project/qemu tags/patchew/20191011085027.28606-1-armbru@redhat.com
Maintainers: Michael Roth <mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com>, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>, Eric Blake <eblake@redhat.com>
There is a newer version of this series
docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.txt            |  7 ++-
qapi/introspect.json                    |  6 +-
qapi/misc.json                          | 10 +++-
tests/test-qmp-cmds.c                   | 24 ++++++++
scripts/qapi/commands.py                |  3 +-
scripts/qapi/doc.py                     |  3 +-
scripts/qapi/expr.py                    | 35 +++++++-----
scripts/qapi/introspect.py              |  7 ++-
scripts/qapi/schema.py                  | 22 ++++++--
tests/qapi-schema/doc-good.out          |  4 +-
tests/qapi-schema/event-case.out        |  2 +-
tests/qapi-schema/indented-expr.out     |  4 +-
tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.json | 22 ++++++++
tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.out  | 75 ++++++++++++++++---------
tests/qapi-schema/test-qapi.py          | 19 ++++---
15 files changed, 178 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)
[PATCH v4 0/4] qapi: Add detection for the 'savevm' fix for blockdev
Posted by Markus Armbruster 4 years, 7 months ago
Add 'features' field in the schema for commands and add a feature flag
to advertise that the fix for savevm [1] is present.

[1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-09/msg03487.html

Based-on: <20191001191514.11208-1-armbru@redhat.com>

v4:
 - PATCH 1: New
 - PATCH 2: Factor out check_features()
 - PATCH 3: Factor out _print_features(), drop duplicated test
 - PATCH 4: Shorten savevm-blockdev-monitor-nodes to just
            savevm-monitor-nodes; tweak commit message and
	    documentation

v3:
 - added tests
 - mentioned commit fixing savevm in the patch adding the new feature
 - mentioned actual problem in the patch adding the new feature
 - rebased on top of the last batch of Markus' cleanups

Markus Armbruster (1):
  tests/qapi-schema: Tidy up test output indentation

Peter Krempa (3):
  qapi: Add feature flags to commands in qapi
  tests: qapi: Test 'features' of commands
  qapi: Allow introspecting fix for savevm's cooperation with blockdev

 docs/devel/qapi-code-gen.txt            |  7 ++-
 qapi/introspect.json                    |  6 +-
 qapi/misc.json                          | 10 +++-
 tests/test-qmp-cmds.c                   | 24 ++++++++
 scripts/qapi/commands.py                |  3 +-
 scripts/qapi/doc.py                     |  3 +-
 scripts/qapi/expr.py                    | 35 +++++++-----
 scripts/qapi/introspect.py              |  7 ++-
 scripts/qapi/schema.py                  | 22 ++++++--
 tests/qapi-schema/doc-good.out          |  4 +-
 tests/qapi-schema/event-case.out        |  2 +-
 tests/qapi-schema/indented-expr.out     |  4 +-
 tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.json | 22 ++++++++
 tests/qapi-schema/qapi-schema-test.out  | 75 ++++++++++++++++---------
 tests/qapi-schema/test-qapi.py          | 19 ++++---
 15 files changed, 178 insertions(+), 65 deletions(-)

-- 
2.21.0


Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] qapi: Add detection for the 'savevm' fix for blockdev
Posted by Peter Krempa 4 years, 7 months ago
On Fri, Oct 11, 2019 at 10:50:23 +0200, Markus Armbruster wrote:
> Add 'features' field in the schema for commands and add a feature flag
> to advertise that the fix for savevm [1] is present.
> 
> [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-09/msg03487.html
> 
> Based-on: <20191001191514.11208-1-armbru@redhat.com>
> 
> v4:
>  - PATCH 1: New
>  - PATCH 2: Factor out check_features()
>  - PATCH 3: Factor out _print_features(), drop duplicated test
>  - PATCH 4: Shorten savevm-blockdev-monitor-nodes to just
>             savevm-monitor-nodes; tweak commit message and
> 	    documentation

Thanks for fixing the problems in 2-4, they all look good to me. Adding
a reviewed-by in this case would not be appropriate.