From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KBYMa-0001tm-9O for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:00:56 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KBYMZ-0001tM-6q for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:00:55 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=32793 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KBYMY-0001t9-SZ for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:00:54 -0400 Received: from mail.codesourcery.com ([65.74.133.4]:40317) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KBYMY-0002zm-8t for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:00:54 -0400 From: Paul Brook Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH][ARM] Fix wrong destination register for smuad, smusd, smlad, smlsd Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 17:58:38 +0100 References: <761ea48b0806230240h31745caaj24e9c6f9ce80eea2@mail.gmail.com> <761ea48b0806250825m3e09a152t79b3edf40b040afc@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <761ea48b0806250825m3e09a152t79b3edf40b040afc@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200806251758.58313.paul@codesourcery.com> Reply-To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: qemu-devel@nongnu.org Cc: Laurent Desnogues On Wednesday 25 June 2008, Laurent Desnogues wrote: > 2008/6/23 Laurent Desnogues : > > smuad, smusd, smlad, smlsd write the wrong register, resulting in > > PC corruption. > > Here is a better patch. > > I will stop posting patches as I have the feeling the maintainer > doesn't care. He might be rewriting everything and so my > patches are useless and a waste of time for everyone :-) TBH It's hard to tell if these are well tested patches, or just quick hacks that you're throwing over the wall. As above where it took you two tries. This isn't bad per se, but compete lack of explanation about what's different doesn't help. Some of your other patches have been prefixed with "I did not check the correctness of that instruction in general, I only made a change that looked logical" and "These are all *wild guesses*". As we know from the recent Debian SSL debacle making "a change that looked logical" can be fairly disastrous :-) This means I'm unwilling to accept the patches a face value, and need to go through them with a fine tooth comb. This takes time, and you go in the queue with the dozens of other of patches, bugs and new features that need my attention. Paul