linux-kernel - Re: [RFC PATCH v6 3/3] arm: fix a migrating irq bug when hotplug cpu

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <566FBA61.3010400@huawei.com>
Date:	Tue, 15 Dec 2015 14:59:45 +0800
From:	Yang Yingliang <yangyingliang@...wei.com>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
CC:	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@...ux-m68k.org>,
	Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
	Mark Rutland <mark.rutland@....com>,
	Linux-sh list <linux-sh@...r.kernel.org>,
	Marc Zyngier <marc.zyngier@....com>,
	Will Deacon <will.deacon@....com>,
	"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	Hanjun Guo <hanjun.guo@...aro.org>,
	Jiang Liu <jiang.liu@...ux.intel.com>,
	"linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org" 
	<linux-arm-kernel@...ts.infradead.org>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH v6 3/3] arm: fix a migrating irq bug when hotplug cpu

Hi, Russell

On 2015/10/22 19:13, 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've dropped it from my tree as an easy way to fix the regression
> on ARM for the time being, pending the outcome of deciding how to
> fix this.
>

The regression had been fixed.
Do I need to put the patch in the patch system again ?

Regards,
Yang

--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/