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

[malc]

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.

> 
> >> 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?

> 
> >
> >>
> >> 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".

-- 
mailto:address@hidden