Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: rename tiny64.conf to tiny64_defconfig

From: Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com>
To: Julien Grall <julien.grall@arm.com>
Cc: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@kernel.org>,
	Wei Liu <wei.liu2@citrix.com>,
	Konrad Rzeszutek Wilk <konrad.wilk@oracle.com>,
	George Dunlap <George.Dunlap@eu.citrix.com>,
	Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>,
	Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, Tim Deegan <tim@xen.org>,
	"xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org" <xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org>,
	Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@epam.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: rename tiny64.conf to tiny64_defconfig
Date: Wed, 29 May 2019 11:40:37 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <875zpt8p58.fsf@epam.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <2b392d1c-0837-4395-8ddc-f0cc04bbea83@arm.com>

Hi Julien,

Julien Grall writes:

> Hi Volodymyr,
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
It's okay, no worries.

> On 5/20/19 3:57 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>>
>> Julien Grall writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 20/05/2019 14:41, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>>>> Julien Grall writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, please add a cover letter when you send a series. This
>>>>> help for threading and also a place to commend on general feedback.
>>>> Oh, okay. That was quite simple change and I didn't wanted to spam with
>>>> extra emails. I will include cover letter next time.
>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, please use scripts/{add, get}_maintainers.pl to find the
>>>>> correct maintainers. While I agree that CCing REST is a good idea, you
>>>>> haven't CCed all of them.
>>>> Problem is that I used this script:
>>>>
>>>> $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch
[...]
>>
>> Contents of the patch is the exactly the same as in my original
>> email. You can find both patches at [1].
>
> It looks like the problem is because the second patch only contains
> renaming. Linux recently fixed it with the following commit:
>
> 0455c74788fd "get_maintainer: improve patch recognition"
>
> I guess we need to port the patch in Xen. Volodymyr, would you mind to
> send a patch for it?
Yes, I have sent it. It is the first time I'm sending ported patches. I
hope, I did it in the right way :)

[...]
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> # make tiny64_defconfig
>>>
>>> ... this one will hide the questions.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyways, it is up to you to accept or decline this particular patch. I
>>>> mostly interested in the first patch in the series, because our build
>>>> system depends on it. This very patch I sent out only because I wanted
>>>> to tidy up things a bit. But if you are saying that it is intended to
>>>> store minimal config in this way, I'm okay with it.
>>>
>>> The point of review is to discuss on the approach and find a common agreement.
>>>
>>> If you read my previous e-mail, I didn't completely reject the
>>> approach in my previous e-mail. I pointed out that the user may be
>>> misled of the name and hence documentation would be useful.
>>
>> I'm okay with this. Any ideas how to document it?
>
> We don't seem to have a place today where we document the defconfig. I
> am thinking to put that in docs/misc/arm.
>
> I would document the purpose of each config. The documentation could
> be in a separate patch.
Okay. Will it be okay, if I'll send it as a separate patch? You can
commit all three patches in a row. Or should I sent another version with
all three patches?

-- 
Best regards,Volodymyr Babchuk
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel