From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MVvZN-0007BF-Le for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:54:53 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1MVvZJ-00079X-4h for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:54:53 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=37942 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1MVvZI-00079T-Pv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:54:48 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.246]:35493) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1MVvZH-0002N0-Sv for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 18:54:48 -0400 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b17so87304rvf.22 for ; Tue, 28 Jul 2009 15:54:41 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4A6F81AD.1040803@codemonkey.ws> Date: Tue, 28 Jul 2009 17:54:37 -0500 From: Anthony Liguori MIME-Version: 1.0 Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] bug report + fix: e1000.c in 0.10.5 does not properly emulate real hardware References: <200906081848.39468.wpaul@windriver.com> <200907281417.32928.wpaul@windriver.com> <4A6F74D3.5080405@codemonkey.ws> <200907281521.12322.wpaul@windriver.com> In-Reply-To: <200907281521.12322.wpaul@windriver.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Bill Paul Cc: "Richard W.M. Jones" , qemu-devel@nongnu.org Bill Paul wrote: > Let me make sure I understand correctly. > > You must have my previous e-mail with the patch in front of you, with the > attached unified diff. Are you saying that rather than just taking that > unidiff, from the e-mail I already sent, you want me to send you exactly the > same file, only with a different subject line that starts with [PATCH]? > Yes. > I'd like to point out that a) while this may be part of some standardized > project etiquette, I've yet to see these required steps clearly spelled out > anywhere, Yes, we're definitely overdue for a SubmittingPatches file to live in the tree. I suggested that you follow these steps not due to any sort of desire to follow arbitrary procedures but because it guarantees your patch will get attention. > and b) why can't you just take the diff I already sent and > apply/test/molest/etc it now that you have it? > Well first, it's against 0.10.5 which means there's nothing to apply it to. It has to be against our development tree. Second, a system scales better when you push work down to the outer most nodes. It's easier for to have you resubmit a patch and have everyone follow the same procedures than to have me manually extract individual patches from random threads, tweak them to apply to git, etc. Regards, Anthony Liguori