On Mon, Apr 04, 2016 at 03:50:35PM +0000, Ben Sanda wrote: > Julien and Wei, > > >> You patches all have the same subject line. Please make them more > >> specific. See my reply to #1 for example. > > > > +1 > > > > Also, you should at least check that Xen still builds after applying > > each patch. Ideally, you also need to be careful to not break any > > feature currently supported. It's useful when someone needs to > > bisect the tree. > > > > For instance, you use the function get_pg_owner for ARM in patch #2 > > but introduce the function in patch #4. This will break ARM build. > > So the patch #2 should be moved after #4. > > > > Furthermore, you remove the functions get_pg_owner and put_pg_owner > > for x86 in patch #3 and then re-introduced them in patch #4. > > Therefore, the x86 will be broken after #3. In this case, it's better > > to have a patch that move the 2 functions from x86 to common. > > Thank you for the comments. I apologize for the errors in the patch > format. This is my first time submitting a patch to Xen and I was > unaware that the patch set order mattered or that I had to account for > a piecewise application of the patch set. I will attempt to resubmit > with this corrected and the patch names updated. > > So then it is permissible to have multiple file changes in one > patch/commit? E.g. a patch that removes from one file and adds to
That's definitely allowed. Just think of each commit as a logically complete unit. It should compile. It should not break existing functionality. Wei. > another in the same commit. I initially thought each patch/ commit was > only supposed to modify one file and that's why I did it that way > > Thank you, > Ben Sanda _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel