[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20250507103821.GOaBs4HVnMXOdzOo_y@fat_crate.local>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 12:38:21 +0200
From: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
To: Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>
Cc: Sean Christopherson <seanjc@...gle.com>, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
tglx@...utronix.de, mingo@...hat.com, dave.hansen@...ux.intel.com,
Thomas.Lendacky@....com, nikunj@....com, Santosh.Shukla@....com,
Vasant.Hegde@....com, Suravee.Suthikulpanit@....com,
David.Kaplan@....com, x86@...nel.org, hpa@...or.com,
peterz@...radead.org, pbonzini@...hat.com, kvm@...r.kernel.org,
kirill.shutemov@...ux.intel.com, huibo.wang@....com,
naveen.rao@....com, francescolavra.fl@...il.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 01/20] KVM: x86: Move find_highest_vector() to a
common header
On Tue, Apr 29, 2025 at 11:39:53PM +0530, Neeraj Upadhyay wrote:
> My bad. I missed updating the changelog with the information about logic update.
No, remember: when you move code like this, your first patch is *solely*
*mechanical* move.
Then, ontop, in further patches you do other changes.
You want to keep mechanical move separate from other changes because it
complicates review unnecessarily.
One of the reasons I'm trying to get you guys to do review too is because then
you'll know.
Thx.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette
Powered by blists - more mailing lists