Bin Meng <bmeng...@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi Alistair,
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:09 AM Alistair Francis
> <alistair.fran...@wdc.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Bin Meng <bin.m...@windriver.com>
>>
>> There is no need to have two functions that have exactly the same
>> codes for 32-bit and 64-bit base CPUs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bin.m...@windriver.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com>
>> Message-id: 1591837729-27486-1-git-send-email-bmeng...@gmail.com
>> Message-Id: <1591837729-27486-1-git-send-email-bmeng...@gmail.com>
>
> I noticed that patches from other people than you have the
> "Message-id" tags, but your patch [1] does not. Is this intentional?
>
> (not sure why we need 2 "Message-id" tags here, with one has <> ?)
We don't. Looks like an accident.
> Just want to know what's the best practice here.
The Message-Id tag's purpose is connecting commits back to the mailing
list. Useful when you want to look up their review later.
To get them into git, maintainers should use git-am -m to apply
patches. I have
[am]
messageid = true
in my .gitconfig.
Maintainers may be tempted to use git-rebase or git-cherry-pick instead
for patches they already have in their local git (such as their own
patches). No good, because we don't get the Message-Id that way.
Patch submissions (as opposed to pull requests) generally do not have
Message-Id tags in commit messages.
Hope this helps!
>> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.fran...@wdc.com>
>> ---
>> target/riscv/cpu.c | 18 +++++-------------
>> 1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>
> [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-06/msg06208.html
>
> Regards,
> Bin
