From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:36697) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eZj2s-0005Ad-Cc for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:01:51 -0500 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eZj2o-00006L-Bn for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:01:50 -0500 Received: from mail-pg0-x242.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c05::242]:45780) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1eZj2o-00005c-5y for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 15:01:46 -0500 Received: by mail-pg0-x242.google.com with SMTP id c194so2884019pga.12 for ; Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:01:45 -0800 (PST) References: <1515637324-96034-1-git-send-email-mjc@sifive.com> <1515637324-96034-7-git-send-email-mjc@sifive.com> From: Richard Henderson Message-ID: Date: Thu, 11 Jan 2018 12:01:41 -0800 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Language: en-US Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v3 06/21] RISC-V FPU Support List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Michael Clark Cc: qemu-devel@nongnu.org, Bastian Koppelmann , Palmer Dabbelt , Sagar Karandikar , RISC-V Patches On 01/11/2018 10:09 AM, Michael Clark wrote: > > The RISC-V QEMU port is presently quite usable, and we have fedora and debian > folk both working on packacking for RISC-V. The general sentiment is does our > port need to be perfect to be accepted in-tree? or can we work on clean-ups and > bug fixes in tree? We're pretty committed to transforming it into a high > quality port and we will have plently of time going forward to address any > issues. We have to balance cleanups and bug fixes for corner cases with adding > and improve device emulation support. So far all of the recent effort has gone > into the former, i.e. clean-ups and bug fixes, so you can be sure we will > attend to any remaining issues in the comitted blocks of time we have available > to work on the port. No, it doesn't have to be perfect to go in. I would like the actual errors fixed before going in; but I suppose this fp stuff falls into the "just cleanup" category. r~