Re: [PATCH 2/3] x86: use correct register names

["H.J. Lu" <hjl dot tools at gmail dot com>]

On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 5:57 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>> On 14.11.17 at 14:42, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Nov 14, 2017 at 5:36 AM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 14.11.17 at 13:33, <hjl.tools@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> On Mon, Nov 13, 2017 at 11:31 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@suse.com> wrote:
>>>>> A test for this is going to be introduced in the next patch of this
>>>>> series.
>>>
>>> Did you read the above ...
>>>
>>>> Please use .byte directive to add 3 testcases for each case to verify
>>>> that disassembler
>>>> properly ignores this bit.   OK with that change.
>>>
>>> ... before replying?
>>
>> Please make each patch self-contained by including relevant tests in
>> each patch.
>
> You clearly show no appreciation at all for other people's time. It
> was for a reason that back then I had told you that the patch
> shouldn't be split up. Now that I did the split, you start splitting
> hair. If it wasn't burdensome to carry a growing set of bug fixes
> in my own trees, this behavior would likely drive me to stop
> submitting x86 bugfixes (outside the area I'm maintainer for)
> altogether. The more that I would really consider you as the
> maintainer of that code to be the one primarily interested in
> getting such bugs fixed, quite reasonably including you doing so
> yourself, and in quite a few cases you not easily allowing in half
> baked or inconsistent patches, but then making a big deal of
> someone else trying to address all those shortcomings.
>

Thanks for your time and patience.

A patch should be self-contained so that it can be reverted easily
if it becomes necessary.   I am really sorry If it prevents you from
working on x86 binutils.  I really appreciate your contribution.


-- 
H.J.