On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 10:17 AM, malc <av1...@comtv.ru> wrote: > 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.
It was not broken code. Did anyone report problems during these months until now? We need a bug fix, not violent disabling acts. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> 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. Are you not subscribed to the list? > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> 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. Which messages? > > -- > mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
