From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Julien Grall <julien.grall@citrix.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 3/6] xen/arm: vgic-v2: Don't ignore a
 write in ITARGETSR if one field is 0
Date: Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:39:04 +0000
Message-ID: <56460418.5060202@citrix.com>
References: <1447084181-13677-1-git-send-email-julien.grall@citrix.com>
	<1447084181-13677-4-git-send-email-julien.grall@citrix.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1511131411060.2653@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
	<5645F92B.1000405@citrix.com>
	<alpine.DEB.2.02.1511131504560.2653@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
Received: from mail6.bemta3.messagelabs.com ([195.245.230.39])
	by lists.xen.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72)
	(envelope-from <prvs=7522f59ca=julien.grall@citrix.com>)
	id 1ZxGTC-0007dK-OK
	for xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org; Fri, 13 Nov 2015 15:40:58 +0000
In-Reply-To: <alpine.DEB.2.02.1511131504560.2653@kaball.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>
Cc: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org, ian.campbell@citrix.com
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 13/11/15 15:05, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> On Fri, 13 Nov 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
>> On 13/11/15 14:37, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2015, Julien Grall wrote:
>>>> +    for ( i = 0; i < NR_TARGETS_PER_ITARGETSR; i++, offset++, virq++ )
>>>
>>> offset is not needed in the loop
>>
>> offset is used in patch #4. Until v3, this patch was melted in patch #4
>> and by mistake I move the change here.
>>
>> So all the changes, the 3 lines above + this one, are valid after the
>> patch #4.
>>
>> Given that I don't expect much changes in this version, I won't bother
>> to rework it for this minor and harmless changes.
> 
> Each patch should stand on its own. What if a week from now we want to
> revert patch #4 because it causes regressions?

Well you will have a pointless variable incremented. But that's harmless.

However, you won't be able to easily revert patch #4 as the follow-up
patches relies on it.

TBH, I'm surprised that you are complaining about a meaningless change
while ugly (and unavoidable) code as been acked without a single remark
(see patch #2).

I'm not plan to resend the whole series for only this change. But feel
free to do it yourself.

Regards,

-- 
Julien Grall