[Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)
On 9 February 2012 13:46, Anthony Liguori 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! -- PMM
Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)
On 05/03/2012 02:58 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: On 9 February 2012 13:46, Anthony Liguori 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. Regards, Anthony Liguori -- PMM
Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)
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 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. 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". Andreas -- SUSE LINUX Products GmbH, Maxfeldstr. 5, 90409 Nürnberg, Germany GF: Jeff Hawn, Jennifer Guild, Felix Imendörffer; HRB 16746 AG Nürnberg
Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)
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 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
Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)
On 4 May 2012 01:41, Anthony Liguori wrote: > On 05/03/2012 02:58 PM, Peter Maydell wrote: >> 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. Yes, it is specifically the failure to follow the standard process of posting patches and allowing the opportunity for review before commit that I'm complaining about. Obviously if nobody cares to actually do the review that's their lookout. -- PMM
Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)
On 04.05.2012, at 04:37, malc wrote: > 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 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. While I agree that it's broken, a runtime error would be a lot better than a compile time one. The way it's now, it only makes our automated compile tests fail. And since nobody realized until now that sparc and alpha don't work on ppc hosts, I don't think having a compile time failure is warranted. Alex
Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)
On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:37 AM, malc wrote: > 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 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. I think disabling was a poor decision, didn't this code already work in some cases? What's really needed is to shuffle the registers according to ABI and this shouldn't be much different to what was already in. I have sent out AREG0 patches for ARM and PPC, also I have x86 patches in preparation. When (if) these and maybe further conversions are committed for 1.2, PPC host support will be practically nonexistent. Is this what you want? > >> >> 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 >
Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)
On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:37 AM, malc wrote: > > 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 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. > > I think disabling was a poor decision, didn't this code already work > in some cases? What's really needed is to shuffle the registers It didn't on Linux and BSDs, might have worked on Darwin and AIX. > according to ABI and this shouldn't be much different to what was > already in. The code that was commited was a. Pathetically inneficient everywhere b. Wrong for SysV ABI > > I have sent out AREG0 patches for ARM and PPC, also I have x86 patches > in preparation. When (if) these and maybe further conversions are > committed for 1.2, PPC host support will be practically nonexistent. > Is this what you want? What i do not want is code that doesn't work. And i take non-existant over wrong any day. I also would prefer to be notified when code which i maintain is modified. [..snip..] -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:03 AM, malc wrote: > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > >> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:37 AM, malc wrote: >> > 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 >> >> >> 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. >> >> I think disabling was a poor decision, didn't this code already work >> in some cases? What's really needed is to shuffle the registers > > It didn't on Linux and BSDs, might have worked on Darwin and AIX. Then fix it, please! >> according to ABI and this shouldn't be much different to what was >> already in. > > The code that was commited was > a. Pathetically inneficient everywhere > b. Wrong for SysV ABI Yes, that's what I told back then. There are too many ABIs for various architectures, the maintainers should know these much better. > >> >> I have sent out AREG0 patches for ARM and PPC, also I have x86 patches >> in preparation. When (if) these and maybe further conversions are >> committed for 1.2, PPC host support will be practically nonexistent. >> Is this what you want? > > What i do not want is code that doesn't work. And i take non-existant > over wrong any day. I also would prefer to be notified when code which > i maintain is modified. But your approach is not OK in any sense, now we have a failed build. Before, we had code that could work in some cases and the other cases could be probably easily fixed. > > [..snip..] > > -- > mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)
On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:03 AM, malc wrote: > > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > > > >> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:37 AM, malc wrote: > >> > 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 > >> >> >> 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. > >> > >> I think disabling was a poor decision, didn't this code already work > >> in some cases? What's really needed is to shuffle the registers > > > > It didn't on Linux and BSDs, might have worked on Darwin and AIX. > > Then fix it, please! WTF? You commit broken code that is used by 9/10 of all PPC users (yes all 9 of them) and _then_, not before, demand to fix it.. shrug. > > >> according to ABI and this shouldn't be much different to what was > >> already in. > > > > The code that was commited was > > a. Pathetically inneficient everywhere > > b. Wrong for SysV ABI > > Yes, that's what I told back then. There are too many ABIs for various > architectures, the maintainers should know these much better. Told whom? > > > > >> > >> I have sent out AREG0 patches for ARM and PPC, also I have x86 patches > >> in preparation. When (if) these and maybe further conversions are > >> committed for 1.2, PPC host support will be practically nonexistent. > >> Is this what you want? > > > > What i do not want is code that doesn't work. And i take non-existant > > over wrong any day. I also would prefer to be notified when code which > > i maintain is modified. > > But your approach is not OK in any sense, now we have a failed build. > Before, we had code that could work in some cases and the other cases > could be probably easily fixed. > Well, here's a "sense", code that _silently_ misbehaves is NOT "OK". -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:46 AM, malc wrote: > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > >> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:03 AM, malc wrote: >> > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: >> > >> >> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:37 AM, malc wrote: >> >> > 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 >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> I think disabling was a poor decision, didn't this code already work >> >> in some cases? What's really needed is to shuffle the registers >> > >> > It didn't on Linux and BSDs, might have worked on Darwin and AIX. >> >> Then fix it, please! > > WTF? You commit broken code that is used by 9/10 of all PPC users (yes > all 9 of them) and _then_, not before, demand to fix it.. shrug. The same approach worked fine on x86. I don't know all architectures and their ABIs, so I can't fix all back ends. You should be able to do this much better. Is fixing the register order that hard? > >> >> >> according to ABI and this shouldn't be much different to what was >> >> already in. >> > >> > The code that was commited was >> > a. Pathetically inneficient everywhere >> > b. Wrong for SysV ABI >> >> Yes, that's what I told back then. There are too many ABIs for various >> architectures, the maintainers should know these much better. > > Told whom? The list at least, there were plenty of people involved in the discussions. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> I have sent out AREG0 patches for ARM and PPC, also I have x86 patches >> >> in preparation. When (if) these and maybe further conversions are >> >> committed for 1.2, PPC host support will be practically nonexistent. >> >> Is this what you want? >> > >> > What i do not want is code that doesn't work. And i take non-existant >> > over wrong any day. I also would prefer to be notified when code which >> > i maintain is modified. >> >> But your approach is not OK in any sense, now we have a failed build. >> Before, we had code that could work in some cases and the other cases >> could be probably easily fixed. >> > > Well, here's a "sense", code that _silently_ misbehaves is NOT "OK". Then fix the misbehaviour instead of this error approach, please. > > -- > mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)
On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:46 AM, malc wrote: > > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > > > >> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:03 AM, malc wrote: > >> > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:37 AM, malc wrote: > >> >> > 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 > >> >> >> >> 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. > >> >> > >> >> I think disabling was a poor decision, didn't this code already work > >> >> in some cases? What's really needed is to shuffle the registers > >> > > >> > It didn't on Linux and BSDs, might have worked on Darwin and AIX. > >> > >> Then fix it, please! > > > > WTF? You commit broken code that is used by 9/10 of all PPC users (yes > > all 9 of them) and _then_, not before, demand to fix it.. shrug. > > The same approach worked fine on x86. I don't know all architectures > and their ABIs, so I can't fix all back ends. You should be able to do > this much better. Is fixing the register order that hard? Yet you commit broken code without consulting the person who does know it, that's the gist of the matter. > > > > >> > >> >> according to ABI and this shouldn't be much different to what was > >> >> already in. > >> > > >> > The code that was commited was > >> > a. Pathetically inneficient everywhere > >> > b. Wrong for SysV ABI > >> > >> Yes, that's what I told back then. There are too many ABIs for various > >> architectures, the maintainers should know these much better. > > > > Told whom? > > The list at least, there were plenty of people involved in the discussions. Myself excluded for whatever reason. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> I have sent out AREG0 patches for ARM and PPC, also I have x86 patches > >> >> in preparation. When (if) these and maybe further conversions are > >> >> committed for 1.2, PPC host support will be practically nonexistent. > >> >> Is this what you want? > >> > > >> > What i do not want is code that doesn't work. And i take non-existant > >> > over wrong any day. I also would prefer to be notified when code which > >> > i maintain is modified. > >> > >> But your approach is not OK in any sense, now we have a failed build. > >> Before, we had code that could work in some cases and the other cases > >> could be probably easily fixed. > >> > > > > Well, here's a "sense", code that _silently_ misbehaves is NOT "OK". > > Then fix the misbehaviour instead of this error approach, please. > Please do read your e-mail, in particular messages from Andreas. -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 10:17 AM, malc wrote: > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > >> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:46 AM, malc wrote: >> > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:03 AM, malc wrote: >> >> > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Fri, May 4, 2012 at 2:37 AM, malc wrote: >> >> >> > 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 >> >> >> >> >> 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. >> >> >> >> >> >> I think disabling was a poor decision, didn't this code already work >> >> >> in some cases? What's really needed is to shuffle the registers >> >> > >> >> > It didn't on Linux and BSDs, might have worked on Darwin and AIX. >> >> >> >> Then fix it, please! >> > >> > WTF? You commit broken code that is used by 9/10 of all PPC users (yes >> > all 9 of them) and _then_, not before, demand to fix it.. shrug. >> >> The same approach worked fine on x86. I don't know all architectures >> and their ABIs, so I can't fix all back ends. You should be able to do >> this much better. Is fixing the register order that hard? > > Yet you commit broken code without consulting the person who does know > it, that's the gist of the matter. It was not broken code. Did anyone report problems during these months until now? We need a bug fix, not violent disabling acts. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> according to ABI and this shouldn't be much different to what was >> >> >> already in. >> >> > >> >> > The code that was commited was >> >> > a. Pathetically inneficient everywhere >> >> > b. Wrong for SysV ABI >> >> >> >> Yes, that's what I told back then. There are too many ABIs for various >> >> architectures, the maintainers should know these much better. >> > >> > Told whom? >> >> The list at least, there were plenty of people involved in the discussions. > > Myself excluded for whatever reason. Are you not subscribed to the list? > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> I have sent out AREG0 patches for ARM and PPC, also I have x86 patches >> >> >> in preparation. When (if) these and maybe further conversions are >> >> >> committed for 1.2, PPC host support will be practically nonexistent. >> >> >> Is this what you want? >> >> > >> >> > What i do not want is code that doesn't work. And i take non-existant >> >> > over wrong any day. I also would prefer to be notified when code which >> >> > i maintain is modified. >> >> >> >> But your approach is not OK in any sense, now we have a failed build. >> >> Before, we had code that could work in some cases and the other cases >> >> could be probably easily fixed. >> >> >> > >> > Well, here's a "sense", code that _silently_ misbehaves is NOT "OK". >> >> Then fix the misbehaviour instead of this error approach, please. >> > > Please do read your e-mail, in particular messages from Andreas. Which messages? > > -- > mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)
On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 10:17 AM, malc wrote: > > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > > > >> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:46 AM, malc wrote: > >> > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > >> > > >> >> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:03 AM, malc wrote: > >> >> > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > >> >> > [..snip..] > >> > >> The same approach worked fine on x86. I don't know all architectures > >> and their ABIs, so I can't fix all back ends. You should be able to do > >> this much better. Is fixing the register order that hard? > > > > Yet you commit broken code without consulting the person who does know > > it, that's the gist of the matter. > > It was not broken code. Did anyone report problems during these months > until now? We need a bug fix, not violent disabling acts. Yes, Alexander told me, that's how i became aware of the issue. > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> >> according to ABI and this shouldn't be much different to what was > >> >> >> already in. > >> >> > > >> >> > The code that was commited was > >> >> > a. Pathetically inneficient everywhere > >> >> > b. Wrong for SysV ABI > >> >> > >> >> Yes, that's what I told back then. There are too many ABIs for various > >> >> architectures, the maintainers should know these much better. > >> > > >> > Told whom? > >> > >> The list at least, there were plenty of people involved in the discussions. > > > > Myself excluded for whatever reason. > > Are you not subscribed to the list? And what do rethorical questions have to do with it? Next thing you will demand that i thoroughly study every mail even when not CC-ed or something? > > > > >> > >> > > >> >> > >> >> > > >> >> >> > >> >> >> I have sent out AREG0 patches for ARM and PPC, also I have x86 > >> >> >> patches > >> >> >> in preparation. When (if) these and maybe further conversions are > >> >> >> committed for 1.2, PPC host support will be practically nonexistent. > >> >> >> Is this what you want? > >> >> > > >> >> > What i do not want is code that doesn't work. And i take non-existant > >> >> > over wrong any day. I also would prefer to be notified when code which > >> >> > i maintain is modified. > >> >> > >> >> But your approach is not OK in any sense, now we have a failed build. > >> >> Before, we had code that could work in some cases and the other cases > >> >> could be probably easily fixed. > >> >> > >> > > >> > Well, here's a "sense", code that _silently_ misbehaves is NOT "OK". > >> > >> Then fix the misbehaviour instead of this error approach, please. > >> > > > > Please do read your e-mail, in particular messages from Andreas. > > Which messages? This one http://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg110283.html [..snip..] -- mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
Re: [Qemu-devel] unreviewed commits (was: Re: Restore consistent formatting)
On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 11:02 AM, malc wrote: > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: > >> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 10:17 AM, malc wrote: >> > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: >> > >> >> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:46 AM, malc wrote: >> >> > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: >> >> > >> >> >> On Sun, May 6, 2012 at 9:03 AM, malc wrote: >> >> >> > On Sun, 6 May 2012, Blue Swirl wrote: >> >> >> > > > [..snip..] > >> >> >> >> The same approach worked fine on x86. I don't know all architectures >> >> and their ABIs, so I can't fix all back ends. You should be able to do >> >> this much better. Is fixing the register order that hard? >> > >> > Yet you commit broken code without consulting the person who does know >> > it, that's the gist of the matter. >> >> It was not broken code. Did anyone report problems during these months >> until now? We need a bug fix, not violent disabling acts. > > Yes, Alexander told me, that's how i became aware of the issue. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> according to ABI and this shouldn't be much different to what was >> >> >> >> already in. >> >> >> > >> >> >> > The code that was commited was >> >> >> > a. Pathetically inneficient everywhere >> >> >> > b. Wrong for SysV ABI >> >> >> >> >> >> Yes, that's what I told back then. There are too many ABIs for various >> >> >> architectures, the maintainers should know these much better. >> >> > >> >> > Told whom? >> >> >> >> The list at least, there were plenty of people involved in the >> >> discussions. >> > >> > Myself excluded for whatever reason. >> >> Are you not subscribed to the list? > > And what do rethorical questions have to do with it? Next thing you will > demand that i thoroughly study every mail even when not CC-ed or > something? No, that would be unreasonable on a high volume list like we have. But I think expecting that all maintainers roughly follow what happens on the list is not unreasonable. I don't read all messages myself, but at least the subject of every message. Perhaps there should be two lists, one for patches and the other for general discussion. Though patch discussions can engage general issues too. > >> >> > >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> I have sent out AREG0 patches for ARM and PPC, also I have x86 >> >> >> >> patches >> >> >> >> in preparation. When (if) these and maybe further conversions are >> >> >> >> committed for 1.2, PPC host support will be practically nonexistent. >> >> >> >> Is this what you want? >> >> >> > >> >> >> > What i do not want is code that doesn't work. And i take non-existant >> >> >> > over wrong any day. I also would prefer to be notified when code >> >> >> > which >> >> >> > i maintain is modified. >> >> >> >> >> >> But your approach is not OK in any sense, now we have a failed build. >> >> >> Before, we had code that could work in some cases and the other cases >> >> >> could be probably easily fixed. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > Well, here's a "sense", code that _silently_ misbehaves is NOT "OK". >> >> >> >> Then fix the misbehaviour instead of this error approach, please. >> >> >> > >> > Please do read your e-mail, in particular messages from Andreas. >> >> Which messages? > > This one http://www.mail-archive.com/qemu-devel@nongnu.org/msg110283.html I think that is not related, but I'll check. > > [..snip..] > > -- > mailto:av1...@comtv.ru
