Am 09.02.2014 00:33, schrieb Paolo Bonzini: > If you consider it a style bug, post a patch to add the > -Wdeclaration-after-statement flag and/or to detect in checkpatch.pl. > Until then, things are left to everyone's taste. AFAIU declarations > after statements are discouraged but not prohibited.
Huh? Where is the justice in people telling me not to do things and to change my patches in certain ways and now Igor, Eduardo, you and others taking different measures for yourselves? Either rules apply equally to all, or they apply to none of us! I have been fair to ping you for my CPUState series in the past until you either provided Acked-bys or gave me a go-ahead for KVM parts; you are not returning that courtesy now and are trying to justify that. I further usually gave a clear last-call before including in a pull. If you read MAINTAINERS, you will find that target-i386/cpu.c is part of the CPU subsystem under my maintenance, so I expect that patches touching it wait for an okay before they get applied through some tree. If you want to take over that file, just ask nicely and we can come to terms - at the time no one else had volunteered. Similarly I feel that you have given quite some destructive feedback to my favorite series the last few months, not clearly stating how you want things done instead. If you're jealous that you didn't make top 1 at KVM Forum 2013 then you have lots of chances to catch up for 2.0 (virtio-scsi qtests, QOM realize conversions, another go at recursive realization, creating proper devices from legacy code, ... just to give some ideas) rather than being unfriendly to me and obstructive to my line of work. I don't personally consider such statistics telling. And I'm not aware of anything I've broken in KVM or SCSI that might explain. Regards, Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg