* Josh Poimboeuf <jpoim...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > > irq_stack_end = (unsigned long *)(per_cpu(irq_stack_ptr, cpu));
> > > - irq_stack = (unsigned long *)(per_cpu(irq_stack_ptr, cpu) -
> > > IRQ_STACK_SIZE);
> > > + irq_stack = (unsigned long *)(per_cpu(irq_stack_ptr, cpu) -
> > > + IRQ_USABLE_STACK_SIZE);
> >
> > This is different.
>
> If nobody knows the reason for it, I may just remove it. It doesn't
> seem to blow anything up on my system. I tried digging through the git
> history but it's been there since the beginning of git time.
Please do any behavioral changes in separate patches - ordered after all the
'does
not change behavior' low-risk patches.
I.e. try to order the patches by risk: (near-)zero-risk ones first, followed by
lower risk ones, closed by higher risk ones. This makes both review,
application
of the patches and any bisection/fixing work later on easier.
If you ever see a good chance to split a patch that changes behavior into a
zero-risk and a low-risk component, do so - we'd rather err on the side of
being
too finegrained in a series than having to scratch heads when bisecting to
overly
large patches.
Thanks,
Ingo
