Am 12.07.2016 um 02:13 hat John Snow geschrieben: > No oxford comma in the subject? :)
It's already hard enough to keep the German comma rules straight and avoid confusing the pre-reform rules with the post-reform ones. I don't think I should bother with the comma rules of a language where even the native speakers can't seem to agree. :-) (But thanks, I wasn't aware that this disagreement even exists before reading it up now.) > On 06/23/2016 10:36 AM, Kevin Wolf wrote: > 1-4: Reviewed-by: John Snow <[email protected]> > 5: Looks good, pending discussion on the right thing to name "ID", but > the patch itself looks perfectly cromulent. > 6: Causes only a minor regression in 030 due to different error class > names, but R-B otherwise. > 7: No opinion. Looks sane mechanically but I don't know enough about > core block properties to have a meaningful opinion. "ACK." Thanks! > For non-RFC, some new iotests would be good. Anything specific you have in mind to be tested? The problem with everything related to devices is that it requires running a qemu process and most likely a specific machine type. But I guess we can just skip some tests if we don't have the right binary. Kevin
