Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)

[Blue Swirl]

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:03 AM, malc <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:37 AM, malc <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > On Fri, 4 May 2012, Andreas F?rber wrote:
>> >
>> >> Am 04.05.2012 02:41, schrieb Anthony Liguori:
>> >> > On 05/03/2012 02:58 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
>> >> >> On 9 February 2012 13:46, Anthony Liguori<address@hidden>  wrote:
>> >> >>> On 02/09/2012 03:48 AM, Markus Armbruster wrote:
>> >> >>>> You buried the one truly important sentence, let me dig it out for 
>> >> >>>> you:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>          *** Patches should always go to the mailing list ***
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> Exceptions need justification.  Responsible handling embargoed 
>> >> >>>> security
>> >> >>>> issues may qualify.  Style fixes certainly not.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>> 100% agreed.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> I don't see anything in the mailing list archives corresponding
>> >> >> to commits f05ae537, f6af014e.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> No unreviewed patches should go double when we're in hardfreeze!
>> >> >
>> >> > These patches are admittedly trivial but it is important to stress the
>> >> > point that all patches need to go on the mailing list before being
>> >> > committed.
>> >> >
>> >> > It's an important part of keeping the development process inclusive.  I
>> >> > don't think it's reasonable to ask for an Acked-by on something as
>> >> > simple as indentation changes but at the same time, there's no reason
>> >> > not to just post patches.
>> >>
>> >> The second patch is far from trivial!
>> >>
>> >> It unneededly breaks the build on ppc hosts (during the Hard Freeze!),
>> >> so that I can no longer compile-test my patch series against PowerKVM.
>> >
>> > As discussed on IRC, the feature does not work on PPC32, hence it's
>> > violently disabled, what's needed is a black/white list of AREG0 ready
>> > targets.
>>
>> I think disabling was a poor decision, didn't this code already work
>> in some cases? What's really needed is to shuffle the registers
>
> It didn't on Linux and BSDs, might have worked on Darwin and AIX.

Then fix it, please!

>> according to ABI and this shouldn't be much different to what was
>> already in.
>
> The code that was commited was
> a. Pathetically inneficient everywhere
> b. Wrong for SysV ABI

Yes, that's what I told back then. There are too many ABIs for various
architectures, the maintainers should know these much better.

>
>>
>> I have sent out AREG0 patches for ARM and PPC, also I have x86 patches
>> in preparation. When (if) these and maybe further conversions are
>> committed for 1.2, PPC host support will be practically nonexistent.
>> Is this what you want?
>
> What i do not want is code that doesn't work. And i take non-existant
> over wrong any day. I also would prefer to be notified when code which
> i maintain is modified.

But your approach is not OK in any sense, now we have a failed build.
Before, we had code that could work in some cases and the other cases
could be probably easily fixed.

>
> [..snip..]
>
> --
> mailto:address@hidden