Andreas Färber wrote:
Blue/Andreas: please could you take a look at this patch and make sure it doesn't break anything in your SPARC64/PPC tests?
It looks as if none of us actually tested or ack'ed it yet, all answers were about sparc progress and devices only... Me for one couldn't save your inline patch and my mailer is known to cause whitespace damage, and git-am wasn't able to handle the mbox file since your SVN diff is missing the a/ directory level expected by Git.
If you're asking for comments from us, please be more patient. I'm still playing with Blue's slightly older libgcc patch, and some trivial ones of mine (e.g., CONFIG_RTAS or wrong return) are awaiting review/committing longer than yours. Please at least let us know in advance how long you're gonna wait, so that we have a chance to send in incomplete review comments even if still untested.
I feel your pain when it comes to having multiple patchsets on the go at once. For a while, I ended up with about 3 simultaneous sets working various things that had bugs, which when I fixed had other other bugs...
In terms of the patch comments, maybe I could have waited longer. Generally the OpenBIOS code is still being actively developed, and so the few people actively working on the code generally push on with what they are doing, and as long as people don't introduce regressions then no-one complains too loudly.
A few times when I've been unsure about a patch, I've posted it to the list for comment and people have been fairly quick in the past to criticise any bad points, so mostly I accept lack of response that people are generally happy with it. Perhaps now with more people working on the code we should reconsider this? I also did a complete set of testing on my PPC test images and didn't see any regressions there, so I felt it was reasonably safe...
I like the general optimization idea, but I found one typo s/fix/fit/ and I was wondering whether the property setting function really needs to live inside ofmem_common.c or whether we might want to make set_property_nocopy() out of it for general use.
Yes possibly, although I think strings/integers need to be encoded (and it is the encoding process that makes the copy of the input) whereas natively the properties work using byte arrays and so we can just set the property to point directly to them.
I also had some style questions related to the inconsistent use of spacing inside braces. Some ppc code even has a wild mix of tabs and 8 spaces, which is unfortunate when many other projects including QEMU use an indentation of 4. We're lacking a CODING_STYLE document imo, to look up which way it's supposed to be.
Yes, maybe we should start thinking more about CODING_STYLE...
BR, Andreas
P.S. I have local patches to prepare ofmem_release() inside ofmem_common.c.
Interesting - these would be very useful :)
ATB,
Mark.