From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757442AbbJVMoY (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:44:24 -0400 Received: from www.linutronix.de ([62.245.132.108]:59865 "EHLO Galois.linutronix.de" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757226AbbJVMoW (ORCPT ); Thu, 22 Oct 2015 08:44:22 -0400 Date: Thu, 22 Oct 2015 14:43:34 +0200 (CEST) From: Thomas Gleixner To: Russell King - ARM Linux cc: Yang Yingliang , Geert Uytterhoeven , Mark Rutland , Linux-sh list , Marc Zyngier , Will Deacon , "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" , Hanjun Guo , Jiang Liu , "linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org" Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 3/3] arm: fix a migrating irq bug when hotplug cpu In-Reply-To: <20151022111307.GS32532@n2100.arm.linux.org.uk> Message-ID: References: <1443087135-17044-1-git-send-email-yangyingliang@huawei.com> <1443087135-17044-4-git-send-email-yangyingliang@huawei.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> User-Agent: Alpine 2.11 (DEB 23 2013-08-11) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII X-Linutronix-Spam-Score: -1.0 X-Linutronix-Spam-Level: - X-Linutronix-Spam-Status: No , -1.0 points, 5.0 required, ALL_TRUSTED=-1,SHORTCIRCUIT=-0.0001 Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, 22 Oct 2015, 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'd have to do a revert as it's in the middle of other changes. So I prefer to do an incremental fix. I committed the change into the irq/for-arm branch and pushed it out. Thanks, tglx