From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from list by lists.gnu.org with archive (Exim 4.71) id 1RvpyO-0001Hg-IK for mharc-qemu-trivial@gnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:53:08 -0500 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:44739) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvpyF-0000oH-Qe for qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:53:05 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RvpyA-0001Ep-7w for qemu-trivial@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:52:59 -0500 Received: from relay1.mentorg.com ([192.94.38.131]:40384) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rvpy0-0001DU-Ep; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:52:44 -0500 Received: from nat-ies.mentorg.com ([192.94.31.2] helo=EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com) by relay1.mentorg.com with esmtp id 1Rvpxt-0002Cz-TG from Paul_Brook@mentor.com ; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 04:52:38 -0800 Received: from nowt.org ([172.30.64.210]) by EU1-MAIL.mgc.mentorg.com with Microsoft SMTPSVC(6.0.3790.1830); Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:52:36 +0000 Received: from wren.localnet (wren.home [192.168.93.7]) by nowt.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 11F276EEE9; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:52:36 +0000 (GMT) From: Paul Brook Organization: Mentor Graphics To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:52:35 +0000 User-Agent: KMail/1.13.7 (Linux/3.1.0-1-amd64; KDE/4.6.5; x86_64; ; ) References: <20120210082350.GB17878@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20120210082350.GB17878@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201202101252.35754.paul@codesourcery.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Feb 2012 12:52:36.0852 (UTC) FILETIME=[DD57C340:01CCE7F2] X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Solaris 10 (beta) X-Received-From: 192.94.38.131 Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, Riku Voipio , Andreas =?iso-8859-1?q?F=E4rber?= Subject: Re: [Qemu-trivial] [Qemu-devel] [TRIVIAL] sas_ss_flags bug for powerpc X-BeenThere: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:53:05 -0000 > Changes which require knowledge of a specific device model are often not > trivial to anyone who hasn't studied the specification. So if the patch > requires background knowledge of ppc ABI, hardware registers, etc then > it's usually best sent to relevant subsystem maintainer (see > ./MAINTAINERS). I agree. IMO It's important to distinguich between trivial patches, and simple patch= es. A trivial patch is one that can reasonably be approved by anyone. If domain specific knowledge, or familiarity with particular code is requir= ed=20 then a change is no longer trivial. Even if it's a one-line change and the= =20 right answer is "obvious" to the relevant maintainer. > Basically I draw the line when it requires me too do too much background > readying to be able to review the patch! ; =46rom what I've seen you're doing a fairly good job at bouncing things bac= k=20 when they aren't appropriate. Paul From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:44719) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rvpy6-0000Wt-4U for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:52:54 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1Rvpy0-0001Dr-JO for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Fri, 10 Feb 2012 07:52:50 -0500 From: Paul Brook Date: Fri, 10 Feb 2012 12:52:35 +0000 References: <20120210082350.GB17878@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain> In-Reply-To: <20120210082350.GB17878@stefanha-thinkpad.localdomain> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Message-Id: <201202101252.35754.paul@codesourcery.com> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [Qemu-trivial] [TRIVIAL] sas_ss_flags bug for powerpc List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: qemu-trivial@nongnu.org, Stefan Hajnoczi , Riku Voipio , Alex Barcelo , Andreas =?iso-8859-1?q?F=E4rber?= > Changes which require knowledge of a specific device model are often not > trivial to anyone who hasn't studied the specification. So if the patch > requires background knowledge of ppc ABI, hardware registers, etc then > it's usually best sent to relevant subsystem maintainer (see > ./MAINTAINERS). I agree. IMO It's important to distinguich between trivial patches, and simple patch= es. A trivial patch is one that can reasonably be approved by anyone. If domain specific knowledge, or familiarity with particular code is requir= ed=20 then a change is no longer trivial. Even if it's a one-line change and the= =20 right answer is "obvious" to the relevant maintainer. > Basically I draw the line when it requires me too do too much background > readying to be able to review the patch! ; =46rom what I've seen you're doing a fairly good job at bouncing things bac= k=20 when they aren't appropriate. Paul