Ok, but it's unclear how do you prefer to create and "empty"
PC_COMPAT_1_6 in Patch 1.
If you want to keep this declaration form
[...]
.compat_props = (GlobalProperty[]) {
PC_COMPAT_1_6,
{ /* end of list */ }
},
[...]
in the two pc_*_machine_v1_6 structs, I'm forced to define
#define PC_COMPAT_1_6 { /*empty*/ }
but then I can't extend PC_COMPAT_1_5 with PC_COMPAT_1_6 as "header"
(like you guys do for PC_COMPAT_1_5 and PC_COMPAT_1_4), because
otherwise PC_COMPAT_1_6 would act as a premature terminator for
PC_COMPAT_1_5 (right?).
Should I extend PC_COMPAT_1_5 with PC_COMPAT_1_6 as a "tail", or
should I avoid extending it in the Patch 1, and do the extension in
Patch 2 (when I have a non-empty PC_COMPAT_1_6)?
2013/7/31 Stefan Hajnoczi <stefa...@redhat.com>:
> On Wed, Jul 31, 2013 at 12:19:06PM +0200, Vincenzo Maffione wrote:
>> Sorry, I'm not confident with this infrastructure.
>
> Thanks for your efforts! Normally this change would not be necessary
> but you are the first person who needs a 1.6 compat property :).
>
>> So do you just want me to invert the commit order? (and do the other
>> two little changes)
>
> Yes, please introduce an empty PC_COMPAT_1_6 in Patch 1 and then make
> use of it for e1000 interrupt mitigation in Patch 2. That way creating
> PC_COMPAT_1_6 is an independent commit which can be cherry-picked and
> reused independently of e1000 interrupt mitigation.
>
> Stefan
--
Vincenzo Maffione
