On 30.05.2012, at 13:54, Andreas Färber wrote: > Am 30.05.2012 13:29, schrieb Alexander Graf: >> >> On 30.05.2012, at 13:22, Andreas Färber wrote: >> >>> Am 30.05.2012 10:13, schrieb Alexander Graf: >>>> >>>> On 21.05.2012, at 18:11, Fabien Chouteau wrote: >>>> >>>>> The size of EPN field in MAS2 depends on page size. This patch adds a >>>>> mask to discard invalid bits in EPN field. >>>>> >>>>> Definition of EPN field from e500v2 RM: >>>>> EPN Effective page number: Depending on page size, only the bits >>>>> associated with a page boundary are valid. Bits that represent offsets >>>>> within a page are ignored and should be cleared. >>>>> >>>>> There is a similar (but more complicated) definition in PowerISA V2.06. >>>>> >>>>> Signed-off-by: Fabien Chouteau <chout...@adacore.com> >>>> >>>> No reply from Blue, so I applied this patch to ppc-next :). Thanks a lot! >>> >>> I did reply though, so I'm not okay. Please rebase on top of the patches >>> that I have supplied you with. Rebasing that set is no fun. >> >> Of course it's no fun, but it's neither crucial nor are you Blue. I'm wary >> enough with a big change like this, but your mail didn't sound like you were >> 100% confident that you took everything into account :(. >> >> I'd really prefer to have Blue just resend a set that converts the target >> and be done with it. Unless you're 100% sure that you did everything >> correctly. Then please resend the whole patch set with your own SOB lines >> and declare your own ownership (or blameship rather) ;). > > It is obvious that you haven't even looked at it or you would've seen my > SoB. :( > > I am confident that I did the rebasing of your series right, and I > pointed out that your series was better than Blue's latest before it > vanished. > > I am not confident that Blue's original conversion was fully correct, > but since it worked and had your SoB I didn't have to worry. ;)
Heh :). Yeah, my main concern was the resend to the ML. And yes, I never look at git trees. A patch set is either a mail or doesn't exist to me :). So just resend it, I'll read through it, and then I'll merge things in my tree. > Also a reminder that the mpc8544ds patch that you have now pushed to > ppc-next is affected by qom-next. Which is my main issue: I don't want > to see conflicting PULLs for qom-next and ppc-next intermixed with Blue > pushing his own series. If you and Blue coordinate who of you takes care > of rebasing your respective series, I don't mind at all whose SoB the > series carries. That'd be easy if he replied to emails ... > Andreas > > P.S. Don't understand what is not supposed to be crucial here? That one's easily explained. If the patch set isn't applied, the world doesn't fall apart :). > I do see > a working qemu.git master branch and progress with merging QOM into > qemu.git as crucial. Whereas pulling logging workarounds into ppc-next > is not crucial at all and could be done by Anthony/Blue just as well. I don't see your point. Did anyone pick up the patch before me? I left it lying there, nobody took up on it. It was originally a PPC targeted patch, so I pulled it into my queue. If someone else takes it in, more fine with me. I just don't want it to get lost. Alex
