From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.0 (2014-02-07) on aws-us-west-2-korg-lkml-1.web.codeaurora.org Received: from lists.xenproject.org (lists.xenproject.org [192.237.175.120]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by smtp.lore.kernel.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id EA281CA0FF2 for ; Wed, 3 Sep 2025 16:06:17 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by lists.xenproject.org with outflank-mailman.1108715.1458766 (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1utpzq-0006eJ-UX; Wed, 03 Sep 2025 16:06:06 +0000 X-Outflank-Mailman: Message body and most headers restored to incoming version Received: by outflank-mailman (output) from mailman id 1108715.1458766; Wed, 03 Sep 2025 16:06:06 +0000 Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.xenproject.org) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1utpzq-0006eC-S0; Wed, 03 Sep 2025 16:06:06 +0000 Received: by outflank-mailman (input) for mailman id 1108715; Wed, 03 Sep 2025 16:06:05 +0000 Received: from mail.xenproject.org ([104.130.215.37]) by lists.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1utpzp-0006e4-Ii for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Wed, 03 Sep 2025 16:06:05 +0000 Received: from xenbits.xenproject.org ([104.239.192.120]) by mail.xenproject.org with esmtp (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1utpzk-004fAB-3A; Wed, 03 Sep 2025 16:06:01 +0000 Received: from [2a01:cb15:80df:da00:7079:39df:8b4d:ea79] (helo=l14) by xenbits.xenproject.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.3) tls TLS_ECDHE_RSA_WITH_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (Exim 4.96) (envelope-from ) id 1utpzk-00EXCz-2l; Wed, 03 Sep 2025 16:06:01 +0000 X-BeenThere: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org List-Id: Xen developer discussion List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xenproject.org Precedence: list Sender: "Xen-devel" DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=xenproject.org; s=20200302mail; h=In-Reply-To:Content-Type:MIME-Version: References:Message-ID:Subject:Cc:To:From:Date; bh=QBURlunJTq1qQGHrqwTGQ18AUOR39bZplNHJB3yn0to=; b=zp8YMSugmQVlJRMHC8e3hK0b1z tZW6E5vbZnb2Typxm5FEvqYbjZ0WTKqqrHziNtC4hOTZWa2gXQloK17MEoTMEZAor6imK3jiDNNmQ 6faSHtIqhN6er5r+FMzZKPH6RiqS0KiO7azj8zVv2JczodPRKxYySK9xuFcxxtDSxYb0=; Date: Wed, 3 Sep 2025 18:05:59 +0200 From: Anthony PERARD To: Jahan Murudi Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, Anthony PERARD Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 0/4] xentop: add physical CPU usage support Message-ID: References: <20250903102323.2553142-1-jahan.murudi.zg@renesas.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20250903102323.2553142-1-jahan.murudi.zg@renesas.com> Hi Jahan, On Wed, Sep 03, 2025 at 03:53:19PM +0530, Jahan Murudi wrote: > This is v4 of the patch series to add physical CPU monitoring to xentop. > > Changes since v3: > - Split the single large patch into a logical series of 3 smaller patches > for easier review. The single patch in v3 was fine to review. It didn't really need to be cut into several patches. Having one file change per patch is certainly the worse possible way to cut one patch into several. It might have been possible to separate into several patch in another way, but it's a bit too late for that, there's already been several reviews. What I like to do when I review a patch series, is to look at the difference since the last review I gave, tools like `git range-diff` and https://patchew.org/Xen/ can help with that. Anyway, squashing back all the patch is the way to go I think. I'll have a look at the changes. -- Anthony PERARD