Re: [libvirt] [PATCH v2a] HyperV: Improve 2008, introduce 2012
Not sure I understand what you mean by ‘not adding the string table’. Could you please
elaborate?
I understand what you are saying about splitting things up into more logical chunks, by
topic, so i will do that for the patches going forward.
Thanks for your feedback, i’m still pretty new to C (not having touched it in about 15
years), so I appreciate the help.
Also, could you elaborate on the 2-level string data vs. single level enum/index stuff?
I’m not sure I follow what you are suggesting.
Thanks!
On Sep 16, 2016, at 2:02 PM, Matthias Bolte
<matthias.bolte(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
2016-09-16 18:35 GMT+02:00 Jason Miesionczek <jmiesionczek(a)datto.com>:
> Second round of patches based on recently complete code review. Going
> to submit patches in much smaller chunks, starting with this one. Future
> patches will be submitted as each previous patch is reviewed and merged.
1-commit flow isn't ideal either.
If I could just look at commit 1 alone then I would not have
understood how you're going to use this new 2-level string lookup
table.
As John suggested you should try to work in smaller chunks, like 4-6
commits at a time. And also try to keep them grouped by topic.
You should avoid having multiple independent things in one patch, like
the new types and the table generation or the autostart functions and
the general invoke functions. Do one thing per commit and ensure that
each commit can stand alone, e.g. the code compiles and works cleanly
after each commit.
For example the first commit adds some new types. The second commit
uses these new types.
But those two commits would not add the string table. This would
either be a separate commit or be part of the commit add the gen
general code the uses the string table.
--
Matthias Bolte
http://photron.blogspot.com