On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:37 AM, malc <av1...@comtv.ru> 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. > > 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. > 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 > > 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. [..snip..] -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
