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. > > Please revert immediately and either use a warning or a runtime abort. > And please use a proper commit message indicating that it affects "tcg/ppc". > -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
