Re: [PATCH 00/53] acpi: refactor error prone build_header() and packed structures usage in ACPI tables

[Igor Mammedov <imammedo@redhat.com>]

On Mon, 5 Jul 2021 14:00:51 -0400
"Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 05, 2021 at 09:56:18AM +0200, Igor Mammedov wrote:
> > On Fri, 2 Jul 2021 10:47:20 -0400
> > "Michael S. Tsirkin" <mst@redhat.com> wrote:
> >   
> > > On Fri, Jun 25, 2021 at 05:17:24AM -0400, Igor Mammedov wrote:  
> > > > Highlights:
> > > >   * drop pointer arithmetic in ACPI tables code
> > > >   * use endian agnostic API
> > > >   * simplifies review of tables. /in most cases just line by line comparision with spec/    
> > > 
> > > 
> > > A hue amount of work, thank you!
> > > To make it easier to merge, how about splitting it up a bit?
> > > E.g. I think first 10-11 patches make sense on their own, right?  
> > 
> > I think you've meant 01-11 patches, and answer is yes, it's in-depended
> > of actual ACPI refactoring as was mentioned is cover letter, see below.
> > 
> > [...]  
> > > > 
> > > > Series also includes optional qtest patches that add missing acpi
> > > > tests for tables that I'm touching to verify conversion changes.
> > > > That includes an alternative build time based impl. of
> > > > qtest_has_accel() API. So if we start bike-shedding this qtest_has_accel()
> > > > we can safely drop all tests included, till the time discussion settles
> > > > and some form of a qtest_has_accel() is merged, at which point I'd respin
> > > > depended tests.  
> > [...]
> > 
> > it's ok to split tests into a separate series if that's what you prefer.  
> 
> Let's start with a smaller series that still makes sense.
> I'll merge that we'll look at the next chunk.
> 

Ok, I'll drop tests for now and respin as v2 with TPM fixes.