[PING] [PATCH 1/5] S390: Add new hwcap values for new cpu architecture - arch12.

[Carlos O'Donell]

On 06/27/2017 08:12 AM, Florian Weimer wrote:
> On 06/27/2017 02:06 PM, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>> On 06/21/2017 08:51 AM, Stefan Liebler wrote:
>>> The new hwcap values indicate support for:
>>> - Vector packed decimal facility
>>> - Vector enhancements facility 1
>>> - Guarded storage facility
>>>
>>> Note: arch12 is NOT the official name of the new CPU.
>>> It refers to the edition number of the Principle of Operations manual.
>>>
>>> ChangeLog:
>>>
>>>     * sysdeps/s390/dl-procinfo.c (_dl_s390_cap_flags):
>>>     Add vxd, vxe, gs flag.
>>>     * sysdeps/s390/dl-procinfo.h: Add HWCAP_S390_VXD, HWCAP_S390_VXE,
>>>     HWCAP_S390_GS capability.
>>>     * sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/bits/hwcap.h
>>>     (HWCAP_S390_VXD, HWCAP_S390_VXE, HWCAP_S390_GS): Define.
>>> ---
>>>   sysdeps/s390/dl-procinfo.c                | 5 +++--
>>>   sysdeps/s390/dl-procinfo.h                | 5 ++++-
>>>   sysdeps/unix/sysv/linux/s390/bits/hwcap.h | 3 +++
>>>   3 files changed, 10 insertions(+), 3 deletions(-)
>>>
>> PING
> 
> FWIW, I think you can assume consensus for such s390-specific changes,
> especially if they do not alter ABI (so that we can revert them if
> necessary, without recompiling applications).
> 
> “In general this maintainership means that you have the discretion to
> assume consensus for a change of your own without waiting for review or
> comments on consensus.”
> 
> <https://sourceware.org/glibc/wiki/MAINTAINERS>

Agreed. Unless you are looking for additional review, as a machine maintainer
you have assumed consensus and are responsible for your changes :-)

-- 
Cheers,
Carlos.