Il 06/06/2012 15:31, Andreas Färber ha scritto: >> > >> > (a) add < 0 checks to <http://patchwork.ozlabs.org/patch/150427/> and >> > include it in the series, >> > (b) make all Netdev integer types as strict as possible, remove >> > superfluous checks, >> > (c) render NetLegacy::name optional. >> > >> > How do I lay out (a)? Should I include the patch verbatim first (with >> > proper From: and Signed-off-by: lines) and then modify it in a small >> > followup, or squash those two and... what? :) > I am missing context here. The referenced patch is on qom-next already > and will thus be in my upcoming PULL (today or tomorrow) unless someone > comments on that patch, cc'ing me, that there's an error. Feel free to > cherry-pick from there but do not squash into random series please. > > I don't understand what < 0 checks you are talking about, lacking time > to go through this QIDL patch series ATM.
The uintXX visitors do not fail if you pass a negative value. I'm fine with including the patch with the small bug and fixing it as a follow-up, there's plenty of time before 1.2. Paolo
