[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 16/16] target-i386: Move KVM default-vendor hack
From: |
Andreas Färber |
Subject: |
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 16/16] target-i386: Move KVM default-vendor hack to instance_init |
Date: |
Sun, 09 Feb 2014 02:41:47 +0100 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:24.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/24.3.0 |
Am 09.02.2014 00:33, schrieb Paolo Bonzini:
> If you consider it a style bug, post a patch to add the
> -Wdeclaration-after-statement flag and/or to detect in checkpatch.pl.
> Until then, things are left to everyone's taste. AFAIU declarations
> after statements are discouraged but not prohibited.
Huh? Where is the justice in people telling me not to do things and to
change my patches in certain ways and now Igor, Eduardo, you and others
taking different measures for yourselves? Either rules apply equally to
all, or they apply to none of us!
I have been fair to ping you for my CPUState series in the past until
you either provided Acked-bys or gave me a go-ahead for KVM parts; you
are not returning that courtesy now and are trying to justify that.
I further usually gave a clear last-call before including in a pull.
If you read MAINTAINERS, you will find that target-i386/cpu.c is part of
the CPU subsystem under my maintenance, so I expect that patches
touching it wait for an okay before they get applied through some tree.
If you want to take over that file, just ask nicely and we can come to
terms - at the time no one else had volunteered.
Similarly I feel that you have given quite some destructive feedback to
my favorite series the last few months, not clearly stating how you want
things done instead. If you're jealous that you didn't make top 1 at KVM
Forum 2013 then you have lots of chances to catch up for 2.0
(virtio-scsi qtests, QOM realize conversions, another go at recursive
realization, creating proper devices from legacy code, ... just to give
some ideas) rather than being unfriendly to me and obstructive to my
line of work. I don't personally consider such statistics telling. And
I'm not aware of anything I've broken in KVM or SCSI that might explain.
Regards,
Andreas
--
SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany
GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
- [Qemu-devel] [PULL 16/16] target-i386: Move KVM default-vendor hack to instance_init, (continued)
- [Qemu-devel] [PULL 16/16] target-i386: Move KVM default-vendor hack to instance_init, Paolo Bonzini, 2014/02/03
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 16/16] target-i386: Move KVM default-vendor hack to instance_init, Andreas Färber, 2014/02/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 16/16] target-i386: Move KVM default-vendor hack to instance_init, Paolo Bonzini, 2014/02/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 16/16] target-i386: Move KVM default-vendor hack to instance_init, Peter Maydell, 2014/02/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 16/16] target-i386: Move KVM default-vendor hack to instance_init, Peter Maydell, 2014/02/08
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 16/16] target-i386: Move KVM default-vendor hack to instance_init, Paolo Bonzini, 2014/02/09
- [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] target-i386: Don't declare variables in the middle of blocks, Eduardo Habkost, 2014/02/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 16/16] target-i386: Move KVM default-vendor hack to instance_init, Eduardo Habkost, 2014/02/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 16/16] target-i386: Move KVM default-vendor hack to instance_init, Andreas Färber, 2014/02/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 16/16] target-i386: Move KVM default-vendor hack to instance_init, Peter Maydell, 2014/02/09
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 16/16] target-i386: Move KVM default-vendor hack to instance_init,
Andreas Färber <=
- Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 16/16] target-i386: Move KVM default-vendor hack to instance_init, Paolo Bonzini, 2014/02/09
Re: [Qemu-devel] [PULL 00/16] KVM changes for 2014-02-03, Peter Maydell, 2014/02/06