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>
 <CAMuHMdWyvaecQHOzFnxVZus_Pfkxjw1XfkGdcLK=D2ThaoJMzA@mail.gmail.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