From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:57609) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrD31-0003FT-Ax for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:07:41 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrD2u-0002Rl-FF for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:07:35 -0400 Received: from mail-yh0-x22f.google.com ([2607:f8b0:4002:c01::22f]:50889) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1UrD2u-0002Rb-Ad for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 16:07:28 -0400 Received: by mail-yh0-f47.google.com with SMTP id f64so5125420yha.20 for ; Mon, 24 Jun 2013 13:07:28 -0700 (PDT) From: Anthony Liguori In-Reply-To: <457772E5-2342-43BE-9043-5F55BFD030C0@FreeBSD.org> References: <1372039435-41921-1-git-send-email-sson@FreeBSD.org> <87hagngzqa.fsf@codemonkey.ws> <457772E5-2342-43BE-9043-5F55BFD030C0@FreeBSD.org> Date: Mon, 24 Jun 2013 15:07:23 -0500 Message-ID: <87sj07jmro.fsf@codemonkey.ws> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 00/23] bsd-user: FreeBSD support for mips/mips64 and arm List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Stacey Son Cc: blauwirbel@gmail.com, qemu-devel@nongnu.org Stacey Son writes: > On Jun 24, 2013, at 12:55 PM, Anthony Liguori wrote: > >> There is no humanly way 23k LOC can be reviewed in a single series. > > Yes, indeed, it is a lot of code. > >> Has this been maintained out of tree for some time? > > Yes, it has been a large, ugly patch set in the FreeBSD qemu-devel > port for some time. Okay, I assume there were many collaborators then? You may want to consider collecting some additional Signed-off-bys then from the original authors. I don't like the idea merging a very large patch series without preserving authorship info. > >> Is it largely >> copy/paste from linux-user? > > A good amount of the initial code came from linux-user but then > diverged when the code was restructured to put cpu and *BSD dependent > code into its own subdirs which I believe was the original thought on > how the code was to be structured. I think Peter made some suggestions about how to split things up... Regards, Anthony Liguori > > Regards, > -stacey.