[PATCH] powerpc: New feature - HWCAP/HWCAP2 bits in the TCB

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 07/01/2015 03:12 PM, Steven Munroe wrote:
> This discussion has metastasizes into so many side discussions, meta
> discussion, personal opinions etc that i would like to start over at the
> point where we where still discussing how to implement something
> reasonable. 

I want to make few higher level comments as an FSF steward for the glibc project.

* IBM has consistently provided hardware and developer resources to maintain 
  POWER for glibc. IBM is the POWER maintainer, and the ultimate responsibility
  for the machine rests with IBM.  Today that responsibility is with Steven Munroe
  (IBM) who is the POWER maintainer for glibc. The machine maintainership provides
  Steven with a veto for machine-specific features, ABIs and APIs, much like all
  the other machine port maintainers. Steven is expected to use this veto to
  further the goals of the glibc project, and serve the needs of POWER users, and
  balance the two.

* Consensus need not be agreement, it may be that we discuss the options, find
  no sustained opposition, and move forward with a solution. People can disagree
  bitterly and we can still have consensus. Developers can have strong and polarizing
  opinions about exactly how to use the limited resource of `thread-pointer + offset`
  accessible data, but at the end of the day consensus can be reached.

* Healthy and active discussion, like the discussion on this particular topic,
  are good for the community. Topics surrounding optimizations are rife with
  complex tradeoffs, and require discussion, summaries, and a developer to
  champion a position of consensus. I see nothing wrong with this kind of behaviour.
  The discussions should stay on point, be technical, provide feedback, and
  indicate clearly if the comment amounts to sustained opposition.

Cheers,
Carlos.