From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:48297) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WsCoa-0006QK-Md for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 11:09:29 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WsCoR-00040z-Hu for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 11:09:20 -0400 Received: from mail-pb0-x22a.google.com ([2607:f8b0:400e:c01::22a]:48851) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1WsCoR-0003ya-4p for qemu-devel@nongnu.org; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 11:09:11 -0400 Received: by mail-pb0-f42.google.com with SMTP id md12so7156393pbc.29 for ; Wed, 04 Jun 2014 08:09:10 -0700 (PDT) Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2014 01:08:42 +1000 From: "Edgar E. Iglesias" Message-ID: <20140604150842.GS18802@zapo.iiNet> References: <1401434911-26992-1-git-send-email-edgar.iglesias@gmail.com> <1401434911-26992-7-git-send-email-edgar.iglesias@gmail.com> <87lhtes35w.fsf@linaro.org> <20140604023346.GD3378@toto> <874n01rtvx.fsf@linaro.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit In-Reply-To: <874n01rtvx.fsf@linaro.org> Subject: Re: [Qemu-devel] [PATCH v1 06/16] target-arm: Add FAR_EL2 and 3 List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , To: Alex =?utf-8?B?QmVubu+/vWU=?= Cc: peter.maydell@linaro.org, peter.crosthwaite@xilinx.com, rob.herring@linaro.org, aggelerf@ethz.ch, qemu-devel@nongnu.org, agraf@suse.de, blauwirbel@gmail.com, john.williams@xilinx.com, greg.bellows@linaro.org, pbonzini@redhat.com, christoffer.dall@linaro.org, rth@twiddle.net On Wed, Jun 04, 2014 at 08:55:30AM +0100, Alex Benn�e wrote: > > Edgar E. Iglesias writes: > > > On Tue, Jun 03, 2014 at 11:22:51AM +0100, Alex Benn?e wrote: > >> > >> Edgar E. Iglesias writes: > >> > >> > >> Ahh my confusion from earlier is now clear. Perhaps the two commits > >> should be merged? > > > > Hi, > > > > The point is to have a non-functional diff and then incrementally add > > the function to easy bisectability if something breaks. I don't > > have a very strong opinion though, so if people insist I can squash. > > Having each commit point be buildable and testable is certainly a > worthwhile goal from a bisect point of view. But for a simple no-op diff > (i.e. functionaly identical, just moving a few bits around) which will > then get updated with functional changes there is an argument to squash > the two together. I disagree. IMO when patches include refactoring + changes, the refactoring should be done with non functional changes (as far as possible) and then followed up with small easily reviewable functional patches. > > I like this patch series because the individual patches are narrow in > scope and not too big hence easier to review. I don't think squashing > some of non-function + functional diffs together detracts from that > nobel goal. As you say it's a judgement call.