Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753045AbdDLGwS (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Apr 2017 02:52:18 -0400 Received: from mail-wr0-f194.google.com ([209.85.128.194]:35678 "EHLO mail-wr0-f194.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751079AbdDLGwP (ORCPT ); Wed, 12 Apr 2017 02:52:15 -0400 Date: Wed, 12 Apr 2017 08:52:11 +0200 From: Ingo Molnar To: Jiri Slaby Cc: Josh Poimboeuf , mingo@redhat.com, tglx@linutronix.de, hpa@zytor.com, x86@kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, "Rafael J. Wysocki" , Pavel Machek , linux-pm@vger.kernel.org, Boris Ostrovsky , Juergen Gross , xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 03/10] x86: assembly, use SYM_FUNC_END for functions Message-ID: <20170412065211.GA16544@gmail.com> References: <9ea5e137-61f9-dccc-bb9d-ac3ff86e5867@suse.cz> <20170320123222.15453-1-jslaby@suse.cz> <20170320123222.15453-3-jslaby@suse.cz> <20170322142610.bo5c6wzlbqnxrgt3@treble> <20170410193512.d67vefxedoockybg@treble> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1032 Lines: 24 * Jiri Slaby wrote: > On 04/10/2017, 09:35 PM, Josh Poimboeuf wrote: > > The code should be in a mergeable state after each patch. If only > > patches 1-3 were merged, the code would be in an inconsistent state, > > with some functions having confusing ENTRY/SYM_FUNC_END pairs. That > > complicates git history and also makes it harder to review each patch. > > > > It would be cleaner to separate things out. First, convert ENTRY/END > > functions to use ENDPROC, which is a minor bug fix. Then they can be > > converted to the new SYM_FUNC_START/END macros in a separate patch. > > OTOH I don't think touching and reviewing the same place twice is what > actually maintainers would want to see. But as I wrote earlier, I can do > whatever is preferred -- therefore I am asking before I start reworking > the patches: maintainers, what do you prefer? I'd lean towards Josh's suggestion of a more granular series. Having to review more is sometimes less, if the patches are more focused. Thanks, Ingo