On 12/11/18 10:28 AM, Wainer dos Santos Moschetta wrote:
The x86_cpu_class_check_missing_features() returns a list
of unavailable features compared to the host CPU. Currently it may
return empty strings for unnamed features as well as duplicated
names.
For example, the qmp "query-cpu-definitions" below shows one empty
string and repeated "mpx" entries:
Signed-off-by: Wainer dos Santos Moschetta <address@hidden>
Reviewed-by: Eduardo Habkost <address@hidden>
Reviewed-by: Eric Blake <address@hidden>
Careful. While I spotted typos in v1,...
Reviewed-by: Caio Carrara <address@hidden>
---
v2:
* Fixed typos. [eblake]
...and you indeed addressed them, me pointing out typos does not imply
that I reviewed the patch for correctness. In fact, I specifically
did NOT give my R-by: tag to v1, because I'm not (yet?) familiar
enough with the tests/acceptance/ framework to state that I have fully
reviewed the patch for correctness; instead, I'm comfortable relying
on the reviews of others (and I am again intentionally not giving R-by
to v2).
Also, when posting a v2, you should include the R-by actually given to
v1 only if the patch is roughly the same as the original. Fixing
minor issues that a reviewer pointed out, or doing obvious rebasing to
changes applied earlier in the series or on upstream git, but where
the algorithm of the patch itself did not change, is okay for keeping
R-b (so if I _had_ given R-b, and your spelling changes were the only
difference, then keeping my R-b would make sense); but where the patch
is fundamentally different, such as:
* Removed unwanted manual test case. [ccarrara, ehabkost]
* Not passing 'accel=kvm' on test's VM. [ehabkost]
then omitting ALL R-by tags, in order to ensure that reviewers check
that the new patch is still correct, is a wiser course of action.
Yes, this is more of a rule of thumb, and there are cases where
keeping or dropping R-b is more of an art form than an exact science;
but hopefully this helps you understand how the tag can be useful for
iterative reviews.