Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v6 1/5] xen/arm: Add support for GIC v3

[Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Fri, 2014-07-04 at 07:34 +0100, Jan Beulich wrote:
> >>> On 04.07.14 at 08:19, <vijay.kilari@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 3, 2014 at 2:39 PM, Jan Beulich <JBeulich@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>>>> On 03.07.14 at 10:37, <vijay.kilari@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>> --- a/xen/include/xen/lib.h
> >>> +++ b/xen/include/xen/lib.h
> >>> @@ -67,6 +67,8 @@ do {
> >>>     \
> >>>
> >>>  #define reserve_bootmem(_p,_l) ((void)0)
> >>>
> >>> +#define SZ_64K  0x00010000
> >>> +
> >>
> >> What a strange definition? What's wrong with using the literal number
> >> if indeed all you mean is "64k"?
> > 
> > Yes, these definitions are similar to include/linux/sizes.h in kernel
> 
> With no rationale at all given in the original commit's description. _If_
> you really need this, explain why in a patch adding a sizes.h similar
> to Linux'es instead of a random single item in a random place.

Vijay, I see this remains unaddressed in v7 of the series. Judging from
the number of mails from Julien I've seen repeating comments from past
iterations this is a common problem with your resubmissions.

If you don't agree with some review feedback or don't want to do it for
some reason then please reply and explain why not. Either you can
convince the maintainers or not. Just resending without the requested
change made just means that we have to go around the review loop again
and wastes the reviewers' and your time.

On the other hand if you are simply missing out on half the comments by
mistake then please take more care.

For this specific patch Jan is a maintainer of this bit of Xen, so if he
is unhappy with it then it can't go in.

Ian.


_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel