On 27/05/2019 10:13, Thomas Huth wrote:
On 26/05/2019 10.09, Lucien Anti-Spam via Qemu-devel wrote:
> On Sunday, May 26, 2019, 4:45:26 PM GMT+9, <no-re...@patchew.org> wrote: > Subject;
[Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Incorrect Stack Pointer shadow register support on some m68k CPUs > .....>
snip> .....> === OUTPUT BEGIN ===
ERROR: Author email address is mangled by the mailing list
#2:
Author: Lucien Murray-Pitts via Qemu-devel <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
WARNING: Block comments use a leading /* on a separate line
#46: FILE: target/m68k/cpu.h:465:
+/* The ColdFire core ISA is a RISC-style reduction of the 68000 series
WARNING: Block comments use * on subsequent lines
#47: FILE: target/m68k/cpu.h:466:>
+/* The ColdFire core ISA is a RISC-style reduction of the 68000 series
+ Whilst the 68000 flourished by adding extended stack/instructions
in>.........> snip
Q1: Name mangling seems to be a bug, whats going on - how should I be
submiting now? ( perl script didnt catch it AND there seems to already
be a patch from half year or more ago ..
https://patchwork.kernel.org/patch/10662525/ ) whats the correct action here?
It's a problem with your mail provider (yahoo.com), you personally can't
do anything about this (except complaining to your provider or to switch
to another one). See this URL for some details:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2017-03/msg05625.html
Unless you are bothered and want to switch your provider, you can ignore
the warning here, it's rather a note to the maintainer that they've got
to adjust the "author" of the patch manually when they pick up the patch.
Q2: I am getting a WARNING but I believe it is an exception in this case.
yes I know it breaks the coding style BUT this coding style was already there
for these comments. Should I submit this patch with a move to the RIGHT
coding style? or will this patch be accepted as the code is older style?
It's up to the maintainer of the subsystem (Laurent?) - IMHO it's ok to
ask for an exception in this case, but a separate clean-up patch is
certainly also welcome.
In this case I thought it was just a missing carriage-return on the
first line, but in fact we have a missing '*' on every line, so, yes, I
agree it can stay as-is and a separate clean-up patch can be sent later.
Thanks,
Laurent
