Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 23.128.96.18 as permitted sender) client-ip=23.128.96.18;
From:   Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au>
To:     Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:     linuxppc-dev <linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Nicholas Piggin <npiggin@gmail.com>,
        Anton Blanchard <anton@ozlabs.org>,
        Oliver O'Halloran <oohall@gmail.com>,
        Nathan Lynch <nathanl@linux.ibm.com>,
        Michael Neuling <mikey@neuling.org>,
        Gautham R Shenoy <ego@linux.vnet.ibm.com>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@kernel.org>,
        Peter Zijlstra <peterz@infradead.org>,
        Valentin Schneider <valentin.schneider@arm.com>,
        Jordan Niethe <jniethe5@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4 10/10] powerpc/smp: Implement cpu_to_coregroup_id
In-Reply-To: <20200731095808.GB18776@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
References: <20200727053230.19753-1-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20200727053230.19753-11-srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <87wo2k3yeq.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au> <20200731095808.GB18776@linux.vnet.ibm.com>
Date:   Fri, 31 Jul 2020 21:29:13 +1000
Message-ID: <87tuxn53ee.fsf@mpe.ellerman.id.au>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Precedence: bulk

Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
> * Michael Ellerman <mpe@ellerman.id.au> [2020-07-31 18:02:21]:
>
>> Srikar Dronamraju <srikar@linux.vnet.ibm.com> writes:
>> > Lookup the coregroup id from the associativity array.
>
> Thanks Michael for all your comments and inputs.
>
>> It's slightly strange that this is called in patch 9, but only properly
>> implemented here in patch 10.
>> 
>> I'm not saying you have to squash them together, but it would be good if
>> the change log for patch 9 mentioned that a subsequent commit will
>> complete the implementation and how that affects the behaviour.
>
> I probably got influenced by few LKML community members who always add a
> stub and implement the gory details in a subsequent patch. I will surely add
> the change log in patch 9 about the subsequent patches.

That's OK, it's a valid way to do things, and can be good for keeping
the size of individual patches down to make them easier to review.

But yeah a mention in the change log of the preceeding patch is helpful
for anyone looking at that commit on its own in the future.

cheers