From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753220AbcHBJal (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2016 05:30:41 -0400 Received: from smtpoutz28.laposte.net ([194.117.213.103]:48202 "EHLO smtp.laposte.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-FAIL) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753049AbcHBJa3 (ORCPT ); Tue, 2 Aug 2016 05:30:29 -0400 Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] irqdomain: factorise irq_domain_xlate_onetwocell() To: Thomas Gleixner References: <579F5C3B.5030805@laposte.net> <579F635E.6090505@laposte.net> <57A05A5E.3070503@laposte.net> Cc: Grant Likely , Marc Zyngier , Jason Cooper , LKML , Mason From: Sebastian Frias Message-ID: <57A062E7.1000008@laposte.net> Date: Tue, 2 Aug 2016 11:07:51 +0200 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/38.8.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <57A05A5E.3070503@laposte.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-VR-SrcIP: 78.31.43.6 X-VR-FullState: 0 X-VR-Score: -100 X-VR-Cause-1: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrfeeltddrjeejgddtjecutefuodetggdotefrodftvfcurfhrohhf X-VR-Cause-2: ihhlvgemucfntefrqffuvffgnecuuegrihhlohhuthemucehtddtnecusecvtfgvtghiphhivghnthhs X-VR-Cause-3: ucdlqddutddtmdenucfjughrpefuvfhfhffkffgfgggjtgfgsehtjegrtddtfeehnecuhfhrohhmpefu X-VR-Cause-4: vggsrghsthhirghnucfhrhhirghsuceoshhfkeegsehlrghpohhsthgvrdhnvghtqeenucfkphepjeek X-VR-Cause-5: rdefuddrgeefrdeinecurfgrrhgrmhepmhhouggvpehsmhhtphhouhhtpdhhvghloheplgdujedvrddv X-VR-Cause-6: jedrtddrvddugegnpdhinhgvthepjeekrdefuddrgeefrdeipdhmrghilhhfrhhomhepshhfkeegsehl X-VR-Cause-7: rghpohhsthgvrdhnvghtpdhrtghpthhtohepthhglhigsehlihhnuhhtrhhonhhigidruggv X-VR-AvState: No X-VR-State: 0 X-VR-State: 0 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Hi Thomas, On 08/02/2016 10:31 AM, Sebastian Frias wrote: >> So the proper way to do that is to split this into two patches: >> >> #1 Change the existing code to do the masking and explain why it is correct. >> >> #2 Refactor the code and get rid of the duplicated implementation. > > Ok, I can do two patches. I splitted it in two patches, one to fix it, and another one to refactor. However, I sent the first one (the one for the fix) as a separate one, instead of as part of a set of two patches. I'm resending both as a set of two patches (since the second one requires the first one), sorry for the inconvenience. Best regards, Sebastian