From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mailman by lists.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KBYaz-0007I3-9L for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:15:49 -0400 Received: from exim by lists.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.43) id 1KBYax-0007HS-Qw for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:15:48 -0400 Received: from [199.232.76.173] (port=56122 helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1KBYax-0007HM-GY for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:15:47 -0400 Received: from rv-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.198.248]:7264) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1KBYax-0006oi-21 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 13:15:47 -0400 Received: by rv-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id f25so7800605rvb.22 for ; Wed, 25 Jun 2008 10:15:45 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <761ea48b0806251015t4088f674hcacbc256b7a6dc0f@mail.gmail.com> Date: Wed, 25 Jun 2008 19:15:45 +0200 From: "Laurent Desnogues" Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] Re: [PATCH][ARM] Fix wrong destination register for smuad, smusd, smlad, smlsd In-Reply-To: <200806251758.58313.paul@codesourcery.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <761ea48b0806230240h31745caaj24e9c6f9ce80eea2@mail.gmail.com> <761ea48b0806250825m3e09a152t79b3edf40b040afc@mail.gmail.com> <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: Paul Brook Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org On Wed, Jun 25, 2008 at 6:58 PM, Paul Brook wrote: > 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 :-) I am certainly over cautious as everyone should be when he doesn't master all of a software :-) So indeed when I propose some "wild guess" it's all related to parts of qemu I am not sure to understand and generally doesn't come with a patch. On the other hand when I post a fix for the behaviour of an instruction I am sure it's OK except when it contains multiple bugs (as was the case for that instruction). I am now doing explicit tests to check each instruction does what it should, so this mistake should not happen anymore. > 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. That's enough of a feedback to me, I am not expecting you to commit anything within a minute or even within days. The lack of any feedback from you made me wonder if you were not within a complete rewrite of the ARM target that would have made my patches useless and just some noise on the list :) Anyway, are you interested in a patch that corrects enough of v6 instructions that FFmpeg for ARMv6 works? Would FFmpeg be considered as a good enough test? Laurent