From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Chen, Tiejun" Subject: Re: [v4][PATCH 03/19] xen/vtd: create RMRR mapping Date: Tue, 30 Jun 2015 19:19:18 +0800 Message-ID: <55927B36.4080809@intel.com> References: <1435053450-25131-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <1435053450-25131-4-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <55894D4902000078000881D3@mail.emea.novell.com> <558A03CD.3090206@intel.com> <558A6ED30200007800088AD9@mail.emea.novell.com> <558A5BA8.9040703@intel.com> <558A796E0200007800088B21@mail.emea.novell.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; Format="flowed" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: George Dunlap , Jan Beulich Cc: Yang Zhang , Kevin Tian , Tim Deegan , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >> It's a matter of taste to some degree. Unless patches are really >> involved, I prefer them not to add dead code. Apart from >> eliminating the case of the code remaining dead (perhaps for >> extended periods of time) if only parts of a series get applied, it >> also generally helps review if one can see the consumer of a >> newly added function right away. > > FWIW I was thinking the same thing as I was looking at these two patches. > Yes, this is our last solution by default. Thanks Tiejun