From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:58201)
	by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1WB263-0003zM-5r
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:01:01 -0500
Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1WB25t-0003eu-N7
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:00:55 -0500
Received: from mail-lb0-f174.google.com ([209.85.217.174]:61828)
	by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71)
	(envelope-from <peter.maydell@linaro.org>) id 1WB25t-0003ep-Gc
	for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 08:00:45 -0500
Received: by mail-lb0-f174.google.com with SMTP id l4so278773lbv.19
	for <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>; Wed, 05 Feb 2014 05:00:44 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <871tzhd9wl.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
References: <1391589562-9010-1-git-send-email-armbru@redhat.com>
	<52F1FC8C.8090705@suse.de> <871tzhd9wl.fsf@blackfin.pond.sub.org>
From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2014 13:00:24 +0000
Message-ID: <CAFEAcA_pX4V9hLCunENB4aooqJiWxZqTrBSNxtt5-TNOPDKoZQ@mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH] Revert "nand: Don't inherit from Sysbus"
List-Id: <qemu-devel.nongnu.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/options/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.nongnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel>
List-Post: <mailto:qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
List-Help: <mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/qemu-devel>,
	<mailto:qemu-devel-request@nongnu.org?subject=subscribe>
To: Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com>
Cc: Paolo Bonzini <pbonzini@redhat.com>, Peter Crosthwaite <peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com>, =?UTF-8?Q?Andreas_F=C3=A4rber?= <afaerber@suse.de>, QEMU Developers <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>

On 5 February 2014 12:24, Markus Armbruster <armbru@redhat.com> wrote:
> As to why it's complicated for Peter to fix, here's what Peter wrote:
> "That series got very big on me with complications.  I think near term
> we just proceed with the revert.  Sorry for the delay."  I have no
> reason to second-guess him.
>
> Promptly reverting patches that cause regressions when a fix isn't ready
> is standard operating procedure.  We can delay a revert a reasonable
> amount of time to deliberate what to do, and perhaps find a fix.  We did
> that, and then some: four weeks.  We should revert, and try again.
> Neither harm nor shame in that.

I agree in general here, which is why I'm going to apply this patch.

While we're talking about regressions: Paolo, do we have a good
fix for the PPC boot regression yet or should we revert the patch which
caused that?

thanks
-- PMM