From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:33848)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1YNnb8-0003AW-Ol
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:14:19 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1YNnb4-0000Ui-L6
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:14:18 -0500
Received: from mx1.redhat.com ([209.132.183.28]:38434)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <mst@redhat.com>) id 1YNnb4-0000Ua-Dk
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 17 Feb 2015 14:14:14 -0500
Date: Tue, 17 Feb 2015 20:14:06 +0100
From: "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com>
Message-ID: <20150217191406.GB29473@redhat.com>
References: <1423479254-15342-1-git-send-email-imammedo@redhat.com>
	<20150217164703.GD26775@redhat.com>
	<20150217185116.4936aadb@nial.brq.redhat.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20150217185116.4936aadb@nial.brq.redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 00/52] ACPI refactoring: replace
 template patching with C AML API
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>
Cc: drjones@redhat.com, marcel.a@redhat.com, claudio.fontana@huawei.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, zhaoshenglong@huawei.com

On Tue, Feb 17, 2015 at 06:51:16PM +0100, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Feb 2015 17:47:03 +0100
> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> 
> > This seems to change the contents of the tables in too many ways.  So of
> > it needs changing since PCI are somewhat broken by your recent patch.
> In which way is it broken?

Try make check and look at the diffs.
They shouldn't be so big.
I want differences to be trivial, e.g.
0->Zero would be ok.
Refactoring code generation should be separate from
changing generated code.


> > 
> > So let's do this: please prepare a minimal patchset that just generates
> > PCI description dynamically.  Drop everything that's not necessary, and
> > verify that make check produces trivial diffs only.
> > 
> > We'll go from there.
> >