qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

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


From: Blue Swirl
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2012 11:24:43 +0000

On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 11:02 AM, malc <address@hidden> wrote:
> On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote:
>
>> 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:
>> >> >> >
>
> [..snip..]
>
>> >>
>> >> 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.
>
> Yes, Alexander told me, that's how i became aware of the issue.
>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 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?
>
> And what do rethorical questions have to do with it? Next thing you will
> demand that i thoroughly study every mail even when not CC-ed or
> something?

No, that would be unreasonable on a high volume list like we have. But
I think expecting that all maintainers roughly follow what happens on
the list is not unreasonable. I don't read all messages myself, but at
least the subject of every message.

Perhaps there should be two lists, one for patches and the other for
general discussion. Though patch discussions can engage general issues
too.

>
>>
>> >
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> >>
>> >> >> >> 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?
>
> This one http://www.mail-archive.com/address@hidden/msg110283.html

I think that is not related, but I'll check.

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



reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]