From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from [140.186.70.92] (port=59802 helo=eggs.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1PmYQ6-0003dR-Ac for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 16:14:54 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PmUT0-0000rS-Ks for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:01:37 -0500 Received: from mail-yw0-f45.google.com ([209.85.213.45]:56162) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1PmUT0-0000rD-H5 for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 12:01:34 -0500 Received: by ywa8 with SMTP id 8so2041367ywa.4 for ; Mon, 07 Feb 2011 09:01:33 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <4D5022E6.4040704@st.com> References: <1296497206-15643-1-git-send-email-christophe.lyon@st.com> <1296497206-15643-7-git-send-email-christophe.lyon@st.com> <4D5022E6.4040704@st.com> Date: Mon, 7 Feb 2011 17:01:33 +0000 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH 6/8] target-arm: Fix Neon VQ(R)SHRN instructions. From: Peter Maydell Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable List-Id: qemu-devel.nongnu.org List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Christophe Lyon Cc: "qemu-devel@nongnu.org" On 7 February 2011 16:50, Christophe Lyon wrote: > On 07.02.2011 17:08, Peter Maydell wrote: >> On 31 January 2011 18:06, =C2=A0 wrote: >>> From: Christophe Lyon >>> >>> Handle unsigned variant of VQ(R)SHRN instructions. >> >> This patch appears to be modifying a section of code >> that was already patched by 2/8 in this series. That's >> too confusing to review -- please combine them into >> one patch. >> > > That's because I borrowed patch 2/8 from your meego tree. > It was incomplete, but as I preferred to keep it as-is, I > completed it in a separate patch. > > From your other comments it looks like I'd have had better ignore > the patches from Meego and rewrite the patches on my own ;-) Well, you shouldn't ignore them, but part of the process of getting those patches into upstream is cleaning them up: testing whether they work, adding the cases where they don't, providing better commit messages, splitting and combining them so that each patch submitted upstream is a single easy to review logical change, and so on. (It's exactly because this isn't a totally trivial process that there's still a queue of non-upstreamed patches in that tree.) -- PMM