| Message ID | 20210730030821.231106-1-ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com (mailing list archive) |
|---|---|
| Headers | show |
| Series | Add support for Fujitsu A64FX processor | expand |
On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 04:08, Shuuichirou Ishii <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > This is the v2 patch series. > > v2: > No features have been added or removed from the v1 patch series. Removal > of unused definitions that were added in excess, and consolidation of > patches for the purpose of functional consistency. > > For patch 1, ARM_FEATURE_A64FX is not used in the v1 patch series, so it > was deleted this time, and will be added again when it is used. > > For patch 2, since the a64fx_cp_reginfo structure is not used in the v1 > patch series, I deleted the empty definition and added the TODO in the > aarch64_a64fx_initfn function. Also fixed the appearance, and cleaned up > and removed some things for patch consistency. > > For patch 3, a64fx was added to docs/system/arm/virt.rst and > hw/arm/virt.c respectively, as a modification to the patch consistency > cleanup done in patch 2. I'm afraid this isn't the way a v2 patchseries should be structured. The idea is that a v2 series should be complete in itself, not based on whatever v1 was. So when you make the changes requested in review of v1, you update the commits in your local git branch, and then you send out the patches as the v2. v2 should apply cleanly on to master, and all the patches in it should be logically separated out changes (with no "patch 1 makes a change and then patch 2 changes the code that was added in patch 1" effects). thanks -- PMM
> I'm afraid this isn't the way a v2 patchseries should be structured. > The idea is that a v2 series should be complete in itself, not based on whatever v1 > was. So when you make the changes requested in review of v1, you update the > commits in your local git branch, and then you send out the patches as the v2. v2 > should apply cleanly on to master, and all the patches in it should be logically > separated out changes (with no "patch 1 makes a change and then patch 2 > changes the code that was added in patch 1" effects). Thank you for comments. We apologize for the inconvenience caused by our lack of understanding. I understood your point. Just to confirm, should I update to v3 and resubmit it as a patch series based on the points you mentioned? Best regards. > -----Original Message----- > From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org> > Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 7:39 PM > To: Ishii, Shuuichirou/石井 周一郎 <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com> > Cc: qemu-arm <qemu-arm@nongnu.org>; QEMU Developers > <qemu-devel@nongnu.org> > Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Add support for Fujitsu A64FX processor > > On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 04:08, Shuuichirou Ishii <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com> > wrote: > > > > This is the v2 patch series. > > > > v2: > > No features have been added or removed from the v1 patch series. > > Removal of unused definitions that were added in excess, and > > consolidation of patches for the purpose of functional consistency. > > > > For patch 1, ARM_FEATURE_A64FX is not used in the v1 patch series, so > > it was deleted this time, and will be added again when it is used. > > > > For patch 2, since the a64fx_cp_reginfo structure is not used in the > > v1 patch series, I deleted the empty definition and added the TODO in > > the aarch64_a64fx_initfn function. Also fixed the appearance, and > > cleaned up and removed some things for patch consistency. > > > > For patch 3, a64fx was added to docs/system/arm/virt.rst and > > hw/arm/virt.c respectively, as a modification to the patch consistency > > cleanup done in patch 2. > > I'm afraid this isn't the way a v2 patchseries should be structured. > The idea is that a v2 series should be complete in itself, not based on whatever v1 > was. So when you make the changes requested in review of v1, you update the > commits in your local git branch, and then you send out the patches as the v2. v2 > should apply cleanly on to master, and all the patches in it should be logically > separated out changes (with no "patch 1 makes a change and then patch 2 > changes the code that was added in patch 1" effects). > > thanks > -- PMM
On Tue, 3 Aug 2021 at 01:37, ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com> wrote: > > > I'm afraid this isn't the way a v2 patchseries should be structured. > > The idea is that a v2 series should be complete in itself, not based on whatever v1 > > was. So when you make the changes requested in review of v1, you update the > > commits in your local git branch, and then you send out the patches as the v2. v2 > > should apply cleanly on to master, and all the patches in it should be logically > > separated out changes (with no "patch 1 makes a change and then patch 2 > > changes the code that was added in patch 1" effects). > > Thank you for comments. > We apologize for the inconvenience caused by our lack of understanding. > I understood your point. > > Just to confirm, > should I update to v3 and resubmit it as a patch series based on the points you mentioned? Yes, please. thanks -- PMM