On 12/18/2013 8:35 AM, Peter Maydell wrote:
> On 18 December 2013 14:21, Tom Musta <tommu...@gmail.com> wrote
>> So it would seem to make the most sense to go back and do what I had done
>> originally -- separate the softfloat fixes into their own patch set and
>> make the VSX and P7 patches dependent on those. Agree?
>
> Yeah, that works. But really what I need is to not have "patch 1
> adds function X; patch 2 fixes a bug that was introduced in patch 1".
> I don't so much care whether the softfloat patches are a freestanding
> set or a part of a PPC series, as long as the patches themselves are
> in a reviewable state.
>
> thanks
> -- PMM
>
OK .... makes sense. I will fold the bug fix back into this series and
re-publish.
