Hi Richard, Aleksandar. On 5/8/19 4:32 PM, Richard Henderson wrote: > On 5/8/19 1:15 AM, Aleksandar Markovic wrote: >> >> On May 8, 2019 2:19 AM, "Richard Henderson" <richard.hender...@linaro.org >> <mailto:richard.hender...@linaro.org>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >> >> This commit message doesnˊt explain the reason for the change, and why is >> this >> an improvement. The underlyng reason for distingishing between env_cpu and >> env_archcpu cases is not explained too. > > It's certainly explained in the preceeding patches that introduce those > functions. > > Are you suggesting that it is beneficial to copy-and-paste a common block > explanation into 21 commit messages for each of target/foo/?
*) Richard: I tried to put myself in Aleksandar shoes. I believe Aleksandar is worried about his MIPS maintainer duty, wanting to Ack-by this patch. It is true that out of the context of the series, it is hard to see what is the problem you try to solve. You could copy/paste the explanation you used previously, with s/$arch/mips/: "Cleanup in the boilerplate that each target must define." "Combined uses of CPU(mips_env_get_cpu()) were failures to use the more proper, ENV_GET_CPU macro, now replaced by env_cpu." Now to clearly understand this patch we still need to look at the previous two arch-generic patches - "cpu: Replace ENV_GET_CPU with env_cpu" and - "cpu: Introduce env_archcpu". Also, it is tedious to copy/paste the same explanation, but thinking of forks or stable branch that cherry-pick not all but some commits of a series, it might be useful. Another guess is Aleksandar might have looked at the series cover, which is not well explained as your v2: https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2019-03/msg07635.html I think you mistakenly copied the v1 blurb instead of the v2 one. So at some point I can understand Aleksandar frustation. *) Aleksandar: This series fall under the "Overall Guest CPU cores (TCG)" section maintained by Richard and Paolo. I think you have to see this series as a whole to understand the benefits of it. With the same reasoning, I believe you shouldn't worry to not give your Ack if you don't feel comfortable. I think Richard sent this v3 to simply address comments raised by the previous reviewer during v1/v2, where there was some discussions: I took it as "this is the last round before getting merged" (unless someone object). It is hard to make everybody happy on a such big project, with so many areas, lines of code, people, culture, etc... I believe we all try to give our best, neither the commiters nor the reviewers are perfect, but slowly we help this project to improve :) Best regards, Phil.