[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <83dbcf46-642a-48fa-b9e5-6d163f0dda35@amd.com>
Date: Wed, 7 May 2025 17:09:37 +0530
From: Neeraj Upadhyay <Neeraj.Upadhyay@....com>
To: Borislav Petkov <bp@...en8.de>
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 5/7/2025 4:08 PM, Borislav Petkov wrote:
> 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.
>
Understood. Thanks for explaining this!
- Neeraj
> Thx.
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists