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

[Blue Swirl]

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 10:17 AM, malc <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote:
>
>> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:46 AM, malc <address@hidden> wrote:
>> > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote:
>> >
>> >> 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!
>> >
>> > WTF? You commit broken code that is used by 9/10 of all PPC users (yes
>> > all 9 of them) and _then_, not before, demand to fix it.. shrug.
>>
>> The same approach worked fine on x86. I don't know all architectures
>> and their ABIs, so I can't fix all back ends. You should be able to do
>> this much better. Is fixing the register order that hard?
>
> Yet you commit broken code without consulting the person who does know
> it, that's the gist of the matter.

It was not broken code. Did anyone report problems during these months
until now? We need a bug fix, not violent disabling acts.

>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >
>> > Told whom?
>>
>> The list at least, there were plenty of people involved in the discussions.
>
> Myself excluded for whatever reason.

Are you not subscribed to the list?

>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> 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.
>> >>
>> >
>> > Well, here's a "sense", code that _silently_ misbehaves is NOT "OK".
>>
>> Then fix the misbehaviour instead of this error approach, please.
>>
>
> Please do read your e-mail, in particular messages from Andreas.

Which messages?

>
> --
> mailto:address@hidden