From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Yang Yingliang Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 06:59:45 +0000 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 3/3] arm: fix a migrating irq bug when hotplug cpu Message-Id: <566FBA61.3010400@huawei.com> List-Id: References: <1443087135-17044-1-git-send-email-yangyingliang@huawei.com> <1443087135-17044-4-git-send-email-yangyingliang@huawei.com> <20151021202907.GN32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20151022092629.GQ32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <5628C0DD.50900@huawei.com> <20151022111307.GS32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> In-Reply-To: <20151022111307.GS32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org Hi, Russell On 2015/10/22 19:13, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 06:56:29PM +0800, Yang Yingliang wrote: >> I described it in v2 cover letter and kept the change history in v6 >> cover letter. There is no comment on the change when patch the was >> reviewing in v2, so I thought it's ok and I kept the change in the >> next versions. > > Cover letters don't always get read, neither do changelogs. > > However, there's a principle here: never mix moving code around with > changes to that code. Always move code with as few changes as possible > in one patch, and then make changes in a subsequent patch. > > The "few changes as possible" means that if you need to make changes > for it to end up building in its new location, such as removing a > 'static' or adding an 'EXPORT_SYMBOL' then those are fine, but the > main body of the code should remain identical, even down to style. > > Any changes (such as, in this case, replacing pr_debug with pr_warn) > should be done as a distinctly separate patch so that such changes > are immediately obvious to reviewers. > >> Need I send a patch to the Thomas branch to revert the change ? > > I think wait for Thomas and Catalin to reply. Your patch series is > currently merged into two different trees (Thomas' and Catalin's > trees) and what action is needed depends on how they want to handle > it. > > The solutions are: > * A patch to restore the pr_debug() which Thomas applies, and Catalin > and myself then pull Thomas' tree again, which potentially creates > a messier history. > > * Catalin drops the ARM64 change and Thomas' tree from the ARM64 tree, > Thomas drops the original commit, and we start again doing it > correctly. > > Which is up to Catalin and Thomas. > > I've dropped it from my tree as an easy way to fix the regression > on ARM for the time being, pending the outcome of deciding how to > fix this. > The regression had been fixed. Do I need to put the patch in the patch system again ? Regards, Yang From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: yangyingliang@huawei.com (Yang Yingliang) Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:59:45 +0800 Subject: [RFC PATCH v6 3/3] arm: fix a migrating irq bug when hotplug cpu In-Reply-To: <20151022111307.GS32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> References: <1443087135-17044-1-git-send-email-yangyingliang@huawei.com> <1443087135-17044-4-git-send-email-yangyingliang@huawei.com> <20151021202907.GN32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20151022092629.GQ32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <5628C0DD.50900@huawei.com> <20151022111307.GS32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: <566FBA61.3010400@huawei.com> To: linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org List-Id: linux-arm-kernel.lists.infradead.org Hi, Russell On 2015/10/22 19:13, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 06:56:29PM +0800, Yang Yingliang wrote: >> I described it in v2 cover letter and kept the change history in v6 >> cover letter. There is no comment on the change when patch the was >> reviewing in v2, so I thought it's ok and I kept the change in the >> next versions. > > Cover letters don't always get read, neither do changelogs. > > However, there's a principle here: never mix moving code around with > changes to that code. Always move code with as few changes as possible > in one patch, and then make changes in a subsequent patch. > > The "few changes as possible" means that if you need to make changes > for it to end up building in its new location, such as removing a > 'static' or adding an 'EXPORT_SYMBOL' then those are fine, but the > main body of the code should remain identical, even down to style. > > Any changes (such as, in this case, replacing pr_debug with pr_warn) > should be done as a distinctly separate patch so that such changes > are immediately obvious to reviewers. > >> Need I send a patch to the Thomas branch to revert the change ? > > I think wait for Thomas and Catalin to reply. Your patch series is > currently merged into two different trees (Thomas' and Catalin's > trees) and what action is needed depends on how they want to handle > it. > > The solutions are: > * A patch to restore the pr_debug() which Thomas applies, and Catalin > and myself then pull Thomas' tree again, which potentially creates > a messier history. > > * Catalin drops the ARM64 change and Thomas' tree from the ARM64 tree, > Thomas drops the original commit, and we start again doing it > correctly. > > Which is up to Catalin and Thomas. > > I've dropped it from my tree as an easy way to fix the regression > on ARM for the time being, pending the outcome of deciding how to > fix this. > The regression had been fixed. Do I need to put the patch in the patch system again ? Regards, Yang From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S932134AbbLOHA3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:00:29 -0500 Received: from szxga03-in.huawei.com ([119.145.14.66]:54800 "EHLO szxga03-in.huawei.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752696AbbLOHA1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 15 Dec 2015 02:00:27 -0500 Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 3/3] arm: fix a migrating irq bug when hotplug cpu To: Russell King - ARM Linux References: <1443087135-17044-1-git-send-email-yangyingliang@huawei.com> <1443087135-17044-4-git-send-email-yangyingliang@huawei.com> <20151021202907.GN32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <20151022092629.GQ32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> <5628C0DD.50900@huawei.com> <20151022111307.GS32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> CC: Geert Uytterhoeven , Thomas Gleixner , Mark Rutland , Linux-sh list , Marc Zyngier , Will Deacon , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Hanjun Guo , Jiang Liu , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" From: Yang Yingliang Message-ID: <566FBA61.3010400@huawei.com> Date: Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:59:45 +0800 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <20151022111307.GS32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Originating-IP: [10.177.19.219] X-CFilter-Loop: Reflected X-Mirapoint-Virus-RAPID-Raw: score=unknown(0), refid=str=0001.0A020201.566FBA7E.0038,ss=1,re=0.000,recu=0.000,reip=0.000,cl=1,cld=1,fgs=0, ip=0.0.0.0, so=2013-05-26 15:14:31, dmn=2013-03-21 17:37:32 X-Mirapoint-Loop-Id: 7589fdec2e81e2ff9c6ac9b78d419375 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi, Russell On 2015/10/22 19:13, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote: > On Thu, Oct 22, 2015 at 06:56:29PM +0800, Yang Yingliang wrote: >> I described it in v2 cover letter and kept the change history in v6 >> cover letter. There is no comment on the change when patch the was >> reviewing in v2, so I thought it's ok and I kept the change in the >> next versions. > > Cover letters don't always get read, neither do changelogs. > > However, there's a principle here: never mix moving code around with > changes to that code. Always move code with as few changes as possible > in one patch, and then make changes in a subsequent patch. > > The "few changes as possible" means that if you need to make changes > for it to end up building in its new location, such as removing a > 'static' or adding an 'EXPORT_SYMBOL' then those are fine, but the > main body of the code should remain identical, even down to style. > > Any changes (such as, in this case, replacing pr_debug with pr_warn) > should be done as a distinctly separate patch so that such changes > are immediately obvious to reviewers. > >> Need I send a patch to the Thomas branch to revert the change ? > > I think wait for Thomas and Catalin to reply. Your patch series is > currently merged into two different trees (Thomas' and Catalin's > trees) and what action is needed depends on how they want to handle > it. > > The solutions are: > * A patch to restore the pr_debug() which Thomas applies, and Catalin > and myself then pull Thomas' tree again, which potentially creates > a messier history. > > * Catalin drops the ARM64 change and Thomas' tree from the ARM64 tree, > Thomas drops the original commit, and we start again doing it > correctly. > > Which is up to Catalin and Thomas. > > I've dropped it from my tree as an easy way to fix the regression > on ARM for the time being, pending the outcome of deciding how to > fix this. > The regression had been fixed. Do I need to put the patch in the patch system again ? Regards, Yang