"Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: > On Tue, Jan 10, 2017 at 11:06:08AM +0100, Markus Armbruster wrote: >> "Michael S. Tsirkin" <m...@redhat.com> writes: >> >> > On Mon, Nov 14, 2016 at 03:25:30PM +0800, Cao jin wrote: >> >> v7 changelog: >> >> 1. fix the segfaut bug in patch 2. So drop the all the R-b of it, >> >> please take a look, there is detailed description in the patch. >> >> 2. add the R-b from Hannes Reinecke >> >> >> >> Test: >> >> 1. make check: pass >> >> 2. After applied all the patch, command line test for all the >> >> affected devices, just make sure device realize process is ok, >> >> no crash, but no further use of device. >> > >> > Consider the megasas device for example, don't you >> > need to test that the change actually does what >> > it's intended to do? >> >> For better or worse, that's a higher bar than we commonly require for >> refactorings. >> >> [...] > > Well the patch says that it's addressing a TODO. If no one can > be bothered to test the functionality, maybe we shouldn't bother > with the change. > > Generally this patchset is at v7. It brings a very limited benefit to > the project. It better be perfect otherwise I don't see why bother.
We obviously disagree on the benefit. Before this series, error reporting is *broken* for QMP. Fixing that is definitely not "why bother" material. I certainly don't object to tightening our testing habits. I was merely pointing out that you're doing that. Testing patches that modernize interfaces often isn't easy for the person doing the work. Fortunately, megasas has a maintainer: Hannes. Who gave his R-by. For me, that would suffice, but you may see things differently. Would a Tested-by from him satisfy you? If not, what would satisfy you?
