On 10/16/19 5:19 PM, Sam Eiderman wrote:
Sure!
Philippe withdrew his R-b on 7/8, as I explained 7/8 is fine (only
need to remove a bad comment) the problem was in the tests 8/8 -
should I include the original R/b?
I withdrew it because John was preparing his pull request, and I needed
more time to review this again. But then Laszlo was quicker and figured
out the problem is in the other patch, so please keep my original R-b.
Thanks to all 3 of you :)
I guess all other 1-6 are fine to add R/b...
On Wed, Oct 16, 2019 at 6:07 PM John Snow <js...@redhat.com> wrote:
On 10/16/19 10:55 AM, Sam Eiderman wrote:
Thanks for the detailed comment Laszlo,
Indeed my e-mail has changed and I only received replies to the
commits where I added this new mail in the S-o-b section, should of
added in all of them.
So as you said it, the problem was actually in using qfw_cfg_get_u32
which assumes the value is encoded LE and has an additional
le32_to_cpu, should have used qfw_cfg_get directly like
qfw_cfg_get_file does.
Regarding qfw_cfg_get_file - I wrote this code when this function did
not exist yet, I think it was added 6 months ago. In any case, I will
use it instead.
Thanks for this.
I will resubmit this entire commit series:
* I will only change code in the last commit (tests)
* I will remove a comment which is now not true anymore
* I will add my new email in S-o-b
Sam
Philippe gave me a verbal tut-tut for not including his review tags in
my last pull request; when you re-spin could you be so kind as to
include any that still apply?
--js
