From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:39489) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ya2Gy-00040J-KL for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:20:10 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ya2Gu-0004HQ-LQ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:20:04 -0400 Received: from mail-qg0-x232.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400d:c04::232]:32855) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Ya2Gu-0004EM-I6 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:20:00 -0400 Received: by qgfa8 with SMTP id a8so145225953qgf.0 for ; Mon, 23 Mar 2015 06:19:59 -0700 (PDT) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2015 09:19:52 -0400 From: "Gabriel L. Somlo" Message-ID: <20150323131951.GA20982@HEDWIG.INI.CMU.EDU> References: <1426969430-14941-1-git-send-email-somlo@cmu.edu> <1426969430-14941-6-git-send-email-somlo@cmu.edu> <550FD374.80602@redhat.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <550FD374.80602@redhat.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 5/5] fw_cfg: insert fw_cfg file blobs via qemu cmdline List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Laszlo Ersek Cc: matt.fleming@intel.com, mdroth@linux.vnet.ibm.com, rjones@redhat.com, jordan.l.justen@intel.com, "Gabriel L. Somlo" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org, gleb@cloudius-systems.com, kraxel@redhat.com, pbonzini@redhat.com, armbru@redhat.com On Mon, Mar 23, 2015 at 09:48:52AM +0100, Laszlo Ersek wrote: > > > diff --git a/qemu-options.hx b/qemu-options.hx > > index 319d971..138b9cd 100644 > > --- a/qemu-options.hx > > +++ b/qemu-options.hx > > @@ -2668,6 +2668,17 @@ STEXI > > @table @option > > ETEXI > > > > +DEF("fw_cfg", HAS_ARG, QEMU_OPTION_fwcfg, > > + "-fw_cfg name=,file=\n" > > I guess I should have pointed this out earlier -- you could have > bracketed the "name=" part, to communicate that "name" is > "implied_opt_name". > > Anyway, don't respin just because of this. Well, this *should* go in, aesthetics are important to me too :) If I get more feedback, I'll work this into a v4 of the series. However, if this is it, and everything is OK otherwise, what's the standard procedure for fixing just this one minor item ? Do I still send out a v4, or is this something the maintainer ultimately applying the patch would rather do themselves ? Thanks again, --Gabriel