On 08/17/2012 10:11 AM, Shradha Shah wrote: >> I'll be posting a proposed replacement patch for this one in a few >> minutes. Please try it out as soon as possible. I haven't gone through >> 7/7 yet, but with the small changes I've squashed in elsewhere, plus the >> 3.5/7 I posted and the 6/7 refactor I'm about to post, definitely the >> first 6 are ready to push. > Laine, > > Sorry for the errors that have been caused in this patch and thank you for > refactoring the code. I have tested the patches 3.5 and 6 that you have sent > and everything works fine. Do you want me to post another iteration > of the patch series? No need, if you ACK them, then I can push them. >> (By the way, a general note - I've been running "make check" and "make >> syntax-check" after applying each of your patches in succession, and >> came up with a *lot* of errors (see my add-on patch that I want to >> squash into 3/7). In particular, you seem to end up with a lot of lines >> that have trailing blanks - if you run "make syntax-check" on each >> patch, it will catch those. There are occasional slipups, but in general >> every patch is supposed to pass both make check and make syntax-check >> (and for a patch series, both of those should complete after applying >> each patch, not just after the end of the series). > Sorry I did not realize I had to perform these checks as well. > I will make sure I perform these checks henceforth. Don't worry about it. Even those of us who know it forget now and then. I'll squash in the changes, rebase and rerun make check one last time, and push the series within the hour. Thanks again for the contribution - this is a very useful feature! -- libvir-list mailing list libvir-list@xxxxxxxxxx https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/libvir-list