qemu-devel
[Top][All Lists]
Advanced

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

Re: [Qemu-devel] Failure to submit patches, two questions - what should


From: Laurent Vivier
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Failure to submit patches, two questions - what should I do?
Date: Mon, 27 May 2019 10:23:38 +0200
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0

On 27/05/2019 10:13, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 26/05/2019 10.09, Lucien Anti-Spam via Qemu-devel wrote:
    > On Sunday, May 26, 2019, 4:45:26 PM GMT+9, <address@hidden> wrote: > Subject; 
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Incorrect Stack Pointer shadow register support on some m68k CPUs > .....> 
snip> .....> === OUTPUT BEGIN ===
  ERROR: Author email address is mangled by the mailing list
  #2:
  Author: Lucien Murray-Pitts via Qemu-devel <address@hidden>
 WARNING: Block comments use a leading /* on a separate line
  #46: FILE: target/m68k/cpu.h:465:
  +/* The ColdFire core ISA is a RISC-style reduction of the 68000 series
 WARNING: Block comments use * on subsequent lines
  #47: FILE: target/m68k/cpu.h:466:>
  +/* The ColdFire core ISA is a RISC-style reduction of the 68000 series
+  Whilst the 68000 flourished by adding extended stack/instructions 
in>.........> snip
Q1:  Name mangling seems to be a bug, whats going on - how should I be 
submiting now?        ( perl script didnt catch it AND there seems to already 
be a patch from half year or more ago .. 
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10662525/ )  whats the correct action here?

It's a problem with your mail provider (yahoo.com), you personally can't
do anything about this (except complaining to your provider or to switch
to another one). See this URL for some details:

https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-03/msg05625.html

Unless you are bothered and want to switch your provider, you can ignore
the warning here, it's rather a note to the maintainer that they've got
to adjust the "author" of the patch manually when they pick up the patch.

Q2:  I am getting a WARNING but I believe it is an exception in this case.      
  yes I know it breaks the coding style BUT this coding style was already there 
for these comments.        Should I submit this patch with a move to the RIGHT 
coding style? or will this patch be accepted as the code is older style?

It's up to the maintainer of the subsystem (Laurent?) - IMHO it's ok to
ask for an exception in this case, but a separate clean-up patch is
certainly also welcome.

In this case I thought it was just a missing carriage-return on the first line, but in fact we have a missing '*' on every line, so, yes, I agree it can stay as-is and a separate clean-up patch can be sent later.

Thanks,
Laurent





reply via email to

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