Re: [PULL 08/13] softfloat: Fix BAD_SHIFT from normalizeFloatx80Subnormal

[Alex Bennée]

Peter Maydell <address@hidden> writes:

> On Fri, 10 Apr 2020 at 16:17, Richard Henderson
> <address@hidden> wrote:
>> Although why Alex didn't add his own R-b to my patch when merging it to his
>> branch, I don't know.
>
> I think this is one of those areas where different submaintainers
> have different work practices. Personally I distinguish "did I
> actually review this" from "did I just put this into my tree and
> rely on others doing the review" and use r-by for the former
> and not on the latter (although obviously everything I put in
> my tree I will have at least very very briefly looked over).
> But I think some submaintainers don't bother to add r-by tags
> for things they review in the process of assembling their
> tree because they see it as implicit in the process.

It was exactly this - pulling in via my tree and adding my own s-o-b
implies I'm happy enough with it. Typically for longer series that
gestate on the list the total number of r-b tags grows with each re-roll
until the series gets pulled into a maintainer branch. This PR is
atypical in that regard because it's a fairly random collection of fixes.

I think the only patches we should be wary of are those with only a
single s-o-b tag from the author. I have to admit there was one such
patch in this PR:

  Subject: [PULL 09/13] linux-user: factor out reading of /proc/self/maps
  Date: Tue,  7 Apr 2020 16:51:14 +0100
  Message-Id: <address@hidden>

I made an executive decision to include it as it was part of the bug fix
for patch 10 and as we approach RC releases I wanted to get it merged.
If you follow the msg-id in the patch you will see the changes in the
patch are purely in response to review comments so while missing a r-b
tag it's not like it's not been on the list and had some scrutiny.
However we should certainly aim for most patches to be fully reviewed
even if we never achieve that level of perfection.

>
> thanks
> -- PMM


-- 
Alex Bennée