foad added a comment. In D96906#2573265 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96906#2573265>, @echristo wrote:
> In D96906#2572842 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96906#2572842>, @msearles wrote: > >> In D96906#2572749 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D96906#2572749>, @kzhuravl wrote: >> >>>> The point is that nobody upstream even got a chance to chime in. >>> >>> We are and will be taking care of any feedback provided in this review >>> post-commit. >> >> To be fair to @rampitec , it was not his desire to push this up in 1 big >> patch. We needed this upstreamed and no time was given to him to break it up >> into reasonably sized pieces. If it appears to be his doing/his intent, >> well, it should not. There have been a couple comments; I believe most >> addressed; comments will continue to be addressed. > > "we needed this upstream" is a business issue on AMD's side, not an issue for > the llvm project. In general the expectation is that code is reviewed > according to the guidelines and a single reviewer with one (small) patch that > wasn't a revert doesn't feel like sufficient review for something of this > size. For something this size I'd have expected Matt to at least be on the > reviewer line and that also wasn't done. This feels like an abuse of the > review system and probably should be reverted. > > Thanks. > > -eric I'd appreciate it if you could find a solution that does not involve reverting and reapplying later, as this will triple the amount of churn we get downstream. (I realise LLVM policy is not to care about downstream but I thought I'd plead my case anyway!) Repository: rG LLVM Github Monorepo CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION https://reviews.llvm.org/D96906/new/ https://reviews.llvm.org/D96906 _______________________________________________ cfe-commits mailing list cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
