On 15/01/16 17:07, Peter Maydell wrote: > On 15 January 2016 at 17:03, Mark Cave-Ayland > <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> wrote: >> I've just run through some SPARC32 tests with this patchset applied - >> testing a savevm/loadvm pair pre-patch and post-patch, and then a few >> random tests with various OSs at random points during boot and no >> regressions here, so: >> >> Tested-by: Mark Cave-Ayland <mark.cave-ayl...@ilande.co.uk> > > Thanks. > >> The only minor nit I could see during review was that both patches 7 and >> 8 bump the VMState revision for SPARC64, and given that before the last >> patch in the set nothing works then is it just worth bumping once to >> version 8 in patch 7 and let that be it? > > My general feeling is that there isn't a significant shortage > of positive integers that would lead us to want to conserve them :-) > If you prefer only bumping once you can do that when you apply the > patches to your target-sparc queue if you like.
Ha well if no-one minds too much then I'm not too worried either :) >From the cover letter it sounds like you've got some further QOM clean-ups waiting on this, so I'll get it merged and queued shortly. ATB, Mark.