[RFC PATCH v6 3/3] arm: fix a migrating irq bug when hotplug cpu
tglx at linutronix.de
Thu Oct 22 05:43:34 PDT 2015
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
> 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
> 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.
More information about the linux-arm-kernel