Re: [Xen-devel] [OPW PATCH V4] tools: xl: refactor code to parse network device options

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Thu, 2014-10-23 at 16:08 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> On October 23, 2014 3:56:14 AM EDT, Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx> 
> wrote:
> >On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 16:21 -0400, Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk wrote:
> >> On Wed, Oct 22, 2014 at 12:35:58PM +0100, Ian Campbell wrote:
> >> > On Wed, 2014-10-22 at 00:36 +0300, Alexandra Sandulescu wrote:
> >> > > This patch removes duplicate code in /tools/libxl/xl_cmdimpl.c by
> >> > > adding parse_nic_config function. This function parses
> >configuration
> >> > > data and adds the information into libxl_device_nic struct. It is
> >> > > called in both main_networkattach and parse_config_data functions
> >> > > to replace duplicate code.
> >> > > 
> >> > > Signed-off-by: Alexandra Sandulescu
> ><alecsandra.sandulescu@xxxxxxxxx>
> >> > > Acked-by: Wei Liu <wei.liu2@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> > 
> >> > This looks good to me, thanks. In reply to the first posting I
> >asked:
> >> > Did you test both code paths? (wrt cfg file vs xl network-attach
> >usage).
> >> > Did you?
> >> > 
> >> > Konrad, any reply to Wei's pros/cons on this patch for 4.5?
> >> > (<20141021152420.GI10234@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>)
> >> 
> >> Release-Acked-by: Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >> 
> >> I am making this based on the fact that:
> >>  - It has run through the OSSTest which does a ton of tests so the
> >>    chance of regression is almost nill.
> >
> >You mean "will", not "has", right? Since it won't be run through
> >osstest
> >until it is committed.
> 
> Has. Wei said it had run through it.

Do you mean when he said "2) the code path is tested in OSSTest." ?

He said the code *path*, not the code, IOW I would read that as "would
be tested", NOT "has been tested".

Ian.



_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel