Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] xen-pciback: clean up {bar, rom}_init()

From	David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com>
Newsgroups	linux.kernel
Subject	Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] xen-pciback: clean up {bar, rom}_init()
Date	2016-06-29 14:50 +0200
Message-ID	<rPn6h-4ei-11@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<rHiGt-7uM-5@gated-at.bofh.it> <rHiQa-7y0-23@gated-at.bofh.it> <rNAU1-1d8-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <rOz9v-5zv-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 27/06/16 08:24, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>>> On 24.06.16 at 17:01, <david.vrabel@citrix.com> wrote:
>> On 07/06/16 07:31, Jan Beulich wrote:
>>> - drop unused function parameter of read_dev_bar()
>>> - drop rom_init() (now identical to bar_init())
>>> - fold read_dev_bar() into its now single caller
>>> - simplify determination of 64-bit memory resource
>>> - use const and unsigned
>>
>> Please split this in 5 separate patches for easier review.
>>
>> Especially as often anyone writing "simplify" means "accidentally break".
> 
> So this is directly opposite of what Boris had asked for - originally
> there were two patches, which I folded upon his request (and
> which he gave his R-b for already). May I ask the two of you to
> first settle on a consistent set of expectations to patches like this?

SubmittingPatches section 3 is clear on what is required.

If your commit message is a list of bullet points it's a pretty big hint
that none of the changes are related.

David

Back to linux.kernel | Previous | Next — Previous in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] xen-pciback: clean up {bar,rom}_init() David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com> - 2016-06-24 17:10 +0200
  Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] xen-pciback: clean up  {bar,rom}_init() "Jan Beulich" <JBeulich@suse.com> - 2016-06-27 09:30 +0200
    Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] xen-pciback: clean up {bar,  rom}_init() David Vrabel <david.vrabel@citrix.com> - 2016-06-29 14:50 +0200

csiph-web