[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [PATCH v8 00/35] Hexagon patch series

From: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé
Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 00/35] Hexagon patch series
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 15:23:03 +0100
User-agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0

On 2/16/21 10:17 PM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2021 at 20:59, Taylor Simpson <tsimpson@quicinc.com> wrote:
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Richard Henderson <richard.henderson@linaro.org>
>>> I've completed review of this round, and there are some nits.  But they're
>>> minor enough that I wouldn't even mind them being addressed via the
>>> normal
>>> development process.  I.e. I'd be keen to not look through that diffstat 
>>> again.
>>>  ;-)
>>> Any objections from anyone else on that?

I'm very pleased with how this series evolved over the time,
and Taylor interaction with the community during the long
review process.

Patches 1-34 are OK but I don't think patch 35 (Dockerfile hexagon)
should enter mainstream that way. It probably makes sense to add
it along with the CI testing job (missing so far).

Patch 30 (Linux user emulation) could have an Acked-by from Laurent.

Also, while having TCG unit tests is great, it doesn't replace
integration tests using real world binaries. So personally I'd
like to be able to test an Hexagon BusyBox, ideally one coming
from the official Hexagon distribution (extracted from the SDK).
We talked about this and Brian will probably share it.

Whole series tested it on x86, so:
Tested-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <f4bug@amsat.org>
(I still plan to test it on big-endian host)

>>> I don't suppose you and Peter Maydell signed gpg keys when we all met in
>>> Lyon?
>> Nope.  Peter, please advise
> We effectively are operating a TOFU policy for gpg keys,
> ie put them on a public keyserver, to the extent that you can arrange
> to get them signed by other people who also have gpg keys please do,
> and at some point we may be able to meet up and get a shorter
> trust path.
> For this patchset, I would prefer it if Richard collected the patches
> and sent me a pullrequest. First pullrequests from new submaintainers
> are higher-effort for me, because I need to look them through carefully
> to be sure that they're the right format and so on; so I'd rather
> not do that with an enormous patchset. It's easier for me if that
> work is postponed and done with something smaller later.

Ahah I just suggested to Taylor to look at your previous explanation
before reading the same explanation here :)



reply via email to

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