"Gabriel L. Somlo" <gso...@gmail.com> writes: > On Fri, May 23, 2014 at 12:00:12PM +0300, Michael S. Tsirkin wrote: >> > 1. There's a fairly complex setup (create a boot disk, start the >> > guest, loop around waiting for the bios to finish booting, watch >> > when your disk-based boot loader runs, etc.) before starting to >> > examine the guest memory for the presence and correctness of the acpi >> > tables. >> > >> > Would it make sense to rename this file to something like e.g. >> > tests/biostables-test.c, and add checks for smbios to the already >> > started and booted guest ? >> > >> > If not, I'd have to replicate most of your test-harness code, >> > which is almost half of acpi-test.c. That shouldn't be hard (you >> > already did the heavy lifting on that one), but I intuitively dislike >> > multiple cut'n'paste clones of significant code fragments :) >> >> Sure, fine. > > So I was about to send a patch with acpi-test.c renamed to > bios-tables-test.c, but the patch is basically removing all of > acpi-test.c, and creating a new file bios-tables-test.c.
Err, isn't that what a rename does? > Do you have a better way to rename the file first, and then I can > send a patch against it ? Or should we give up on renaming it > altogether ? Or should I just bite the bullet and cut'n'paste your > test harness into a new file specific to smbios ? > > It's not particularly important to me which way we go -- I want to do > the right thing, whatever you decide that is :) Did you rename with git-mv? Did you diff with rename detection on? See diff.renames in git-config(1). [...]
