On Mon, May 05, 2014 at 07:38:58PM +0200, Andreas F?rber wrote: > Yes, with that patch it's okay, you just forgot to mention that > dependency in your cover letter - also a change log from v1 is missing. > Instead of quoting Alex in the cover letter, you should've placed his > Acked-by before your Signed-off-by in the patches he ack'ed - unless you > did major changes there (e.g., uint8_t), in which case it shouldn't be > in the cover letter either. And please use [PATCH v5 n/m] as canonical > ordering. :)
You're right; the dependency was mentioned in the v4 cover letter, but in retrospect it makes perfect sense I should have kept appending to that content instead of using it as a place to reply to the last person who commented on the previous version :) Re. all that stuff you said about how to handle acked-by and reviewed-by replies, is there a good spot where that process is documented ? I noticed you all have a protocol in place for dealing with that, but this is the first time I had a chance to screw it up myself :) Googling around, I found this: https://www.kernel.org/doc/Documentation/SubmittingPatches Does QEMU have its own, or is this what I need for future reference ? > I trust that you have tested and other reviewers have considered no cast > to be necessary for left-hand s->version in the expression now that it's > uint8_t rather than uint32_t? Then, I get no compiler warnings, and adjacent case branches also assign other 8-bit values to the 32-bit "val" variable w/o a cast, so I think we're OK. > > Reviewed-by: Andreas F?rber <[email protected]> Thanks much, --Gabriel
