qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PULL v3 2/6] tests/9pfs: change qtest name prefix to synth


From: Christian Schoenebeck
Subject: Re: [PULL v3 2/6] tests/9pfs: change qtest name prefix to synth
Date: Tue, 20 Oct 2020 13:54:32 +0200

On Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2020 12:00:57 CEST Greg Kurz wrote:
> On Tue, 20 Oct 2020 11:43:18 +0200
> 
> Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com> wrote:
> > On Dienstag, 20. Oktober 2020 09:36:10 CEST Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote:
> > > On 10/8/20 8:34 PM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> > > > All existing 9pfs test cases are using the 'synth' fs driver so far,
> > > > which
> > > > means they are not accessing real files, but a purely simulated (in
> > > > RAM
> > > > only) file system.
> > > > 
> > > > Let's make this clear by changing the prefix of the individual qtest
> > > > case
> > > > names from 'fs/' to 'synth/'. That way they'll be easily
> > > > distinguishable
> > > > from upcoming new 9pfs test cases supposed to be using a different fs
> > > > driver.
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com>
> > > > Message-Id:
> > > > <e04e75acb849b085c6d6320b2433a15fa935bcff.1602182956.git.qemu_oss@crud
> > > > eby
> > > > te.com> Signed-off-by: Christian Schoenebeck <qemu_oss@crudebyte.com>
> > > 
> > > Harmless, but don't need to sign twice ;)
> > 
> > Ah, I thought that's the common way, as Greg's PRs contained 2 SOBs as
> > well, i.e. I thought this was intended to outline the patch author and
> > submaintainer were the same person.
> > 
> > BTW I actually did not explicitly add the 2nd SOB. It was rather added by
> > the patchwork client automatically. So maybe it should be fixed in the
> > client to detect an already existing SOB line? Or am missing something
> > here?
> Yeah this is the reason why my sob appears twice on patches authored by
> me, and since this is harmless I never really investigated how to fix
> pwclient :)

Well, I would usually offer my 'I can look at it' at this point, but I am 
reluctant this time as I assume it will end up as my recently suggested libqos 
patches where I did not get any response from the officially assigned 
maintainers; not even a simple 'nack'.

Best regards,
Christian Schoenebeck





reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]