On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:46 AM, malc <av1...@comtv.ru> wrote: > > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > > > >> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:03 AM, malc <av1...@comtv.ru> wrote: > >> > 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. > >> > >> Then fix it, please! > > > > WTF? You commit broken code that is used by 9/10 of all PPC users (yes > > all 9 of them) and _then_, not before, demand to fix it.. shrug. > > The same approach worked fine on x86. I don't know all architectures > and their ABIs, so I can't fix all back ends. You should be able to do > this much better. Is fixing the register order that hard?
Yet you commit broken code without consulting the person who does know it, that's the gist of the matter. > > > > >> > >> >> 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 > >> > >> Yes, that's what I told back then. There are too many ABIs for various > >> architectures, the maintainers should know these much better. > > > > Told whom? > > The list at least, there were plenty of people involved in the discussions. Myself excluded for whatever reason. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> 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. > >> > >> But your approach is not OK in any sense, now we have a failed build. > >> Before, we had code that could work in some cases and the other cases > >> could be probably easily fixed. > >> > > > > Well, here's a "sense", code that _silently_ misbehaves is NOT "OK". > > Then fix the misbehaviour instead of this error approach, please. > Please do read your e-mail, in particular messages from Andreas. -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
