Re: [Qemu-devel] Significant performance regression in qemu-system-mips.

[Aurelien Jarno <aurelien@aurel32.net>]

On Fri, Mar 26, 2010 at 04:53:02AM -0500, Rob Landley wrote:
> > > As far as I can tell the sh4 linux-kernel maintainer officially doesn't
> > > care about anybody who isn't employed by his company, so I'm not sure I
> > > still care about supporting that platform.  It's not real hardware, it's
> > > a one-company toy:
> > >
> > >   http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel/7233
> > >   http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.linux.ports.sh.devel/7237
> >
> > If you continue to attack people like that, not sure I'll continue to
> > care about your emails.
> 
> I'm not asking anyone to care about me personally, I'm asking them to care 
> about specific technical issues.  If those issues don't interest you, they 
> don't interest you.
> 
> Speaking of ppc, last month I sent this patch:
> 
>   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-02/msg00917.html
> 
> And I was under the impression people agreed with it:
> 
>   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-02/msg01044.html
>   http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2010-02/msg01714.html
> 
> But today's -git is still having that same issue, and the same patch still 
> applies cleanly and fixes it for me.

Re-read the last link you quoted, and especially this part:

| The
| same way using CONFIG_BSD in linux-user/elfload.c doesn't make sense,
| as this code will never been compiled.

While your patch goes in the good direction, it doesn't mean it is
correct. Conditionally compiling code on CONFIG_BSD in a Linux specific
file doesn't make sense.

I am pretty fine applying a correct patch if you send a new one.


> > Your emails on this mailing list are always
> > complaining, and it really starts to be annoying.
> 
> I tend to email when something isn't working for me, and not email when things 
> are working for me, yes.
> 
> In this case, I was listing the platforms I have existing .configs to build 
> system images for, and explaining why I've currently lost interest in one of 
> them (sh4), despite still being interested in even older things like the alpha 
> and m68k (neither of which qemu has in-tree system emulations for yet).
> 
> I was unaware of attacking anyone personally.  I've never met the sh4 
> maintainer, that I'm aware of.  I disagree with his judgement call in this 
> instance.  Of course I respect his right to take any position he likes, since 
> he _is_ maintainer, but his position removes any motivation to put more of my 
> own time into his platform just now.  (I feel similarly disinterested in 
> itanium and pa-risc.)
> 

I have no problem with you having no interest in sh4, a lot of people
are in you case. I don't think it gives you the right to describe the
sh4 kernel maintainer as "sh4 linux-kernel maintainer officially doesn't
care about anybody who isn't employed by his company", or later "It's 
not real hardware, it's a one-company toy". This is not something
reflected in link you quoted. Paul Mundt has been nicely answering your
question on this thread.

-- 
Aurelien Jarno	                        GPG: 1024D/F1BCDB73
aurelien@aurel32.net                 http://www.aurel32.net