On Thu, 2019-07-18 at 14:09 +0100, George Dunlap wrote: > On 7/17/19 7:39 PM, Dario Faggioli wrote: > > Point is the work of removing such vCPU from any CPU and from the > > wait > > list has been done already, in null_vcpu_sleep(), while the vCPU > > was > > going offline. So, here, we only need to make sure that we don't do > > anything, i.e., that we don't call _vcpu_remove(). > > Right; I'm mainly saying, if the commit message had said what I wrote > above, then I would have immediately been able to see what this hunk > was doing and understand why it was needed. > Ok then, I'll improve the commit message and...
> > But I appreciate you seeing it differently, while I don't have a > > too > > strong opinion, so I'd be fine merging the patches (or doing other > > series rearrangements, if you feel strongly that they're > > necessary). > > > Merging the patches would be one way to avoid the regression, yes. > ... I'll merge the patches. > Sorry to be picky, but I've recently spent a lot of time doing > archaeology, and wishing people in the distant past had been more > careful / informative in their commit hygiene. > No problem at all, I see and agree on the fact that changelogs are really important. :-) I guess I'll wait a little, to see if you have any comments on patch 4, and then resend. Thanks and Regards -- Dario Faggioli, Ph.D http://about.me/dario.faggioli Virtualization Software Engineer SUSE Labs, SUSE https://www.suse.com/ ------------------------------------------------------------------- <<This happens because _I_ choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel
