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

[Philippe Mathieu-Daudé]

Hi Cristian,

On 10/20/20 1:54 PM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote:
> 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'.

I was just watching your contributions and suggested an improvement
because something in your new workflow seems mis-configured (other
maintainers don't have this problem). I didn't asked you to fix a
bug in a different tool. I apologize if I was unclear and you
understood it this way.

Regarding your issue with a different series, I suppose you already
read:
https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch#If_your_patch_seems_to_have_been_ignored
and
https://wiki.qemu.org/Contribute/SubmitAPatch#Return_the_favor

You'll see that maintenance can be very time consuming, and we are
overcrowded from time to time when there is rush. I doubt maintainers
are ignoring your patches, as most of them try to do their best.
You might help them by reviewing patches for them, so they have time
to process your series.

Regards,

Phil.