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

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 07/02/2015 11:21 PM, Carlos O'Donell wrote:
> 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.

Fixed TO: Joseph Myers.

Cheers,
Carlos.