* 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