On Wed, Feb 07, 2018 at 09:52:25AM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
[...]
> > * I suggest testing all CPU models in patch 02/25, but this
> > shouldn't block the series. Can be a follow-up patch.
> the goal of the test is that refactoring didn't regress
> 'none' machine after following change in 23/2
On Tue, 6 Feb 2018 20:32:13 -0200
Eduardo Habkost wrote:
> I will try to summarize my comments here:
Thanks for review
> * I suggest squashing patches 2-22 together. This way we
> shouldn't have any intermediate commits where "make check"
> generates warnings, and the series is shorter.
>
I will try to summarize my comments here:
* I suggest squashing patches 2-22 together. This way we
shouldn't have any intermediate commits where "make check"
generates warnings, and the series is shorter.
* Or, even better: squash the CPU_RESOLVING_TYPE parts of 3-22
into one patch, and
v3:
- use qtest_startf() instead of qtest_start()
- rename tests/machine-none.c to tests/machine-none-test.c
- introduce first CPU_RESOLVING_TYPE for all targets and
only then use it parse_cpu_model()
- stop abusing mc->default_cpu_type as resolving cpu type,
move cpu_parse_cpu_m
