On 04.05.2012, at 04:37, malc 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<anth...@codemonkey.ws> 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.
While I agree that it's broken, a runtime error would be a lot better than a compile time one. The way it's now, it only makes our automated compile tests fail. And since nobody realized until now that sparc and alpha don't work on ppc hosts, I don't think having a compile time failure is warranted. Alex
