Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v4 0/2] Make the pcidevs_lock a recursive one

[Dario Faggioli <dario.faggioli@xxxxxxxxxx>]

On Wed, 2016-03-16 at 02:39 +0000, Xu, Quan wrote:
> Hi,
>   __iiuc__, this patch set is ready for staging branch. if yes, could
> you help me merge it into staging branch?
>
Well, not yet, AFAICS.

In fact, patch 1 touches xen/drivers/passthrough/amd/ and, unless I've
missed it, I haven't seen Suravee acking it.

Suravee, ping?

> Then, I would send out remaining patch sets on it. otherwise, there
> are some conflicts to it. Thanks.
> 
I totally understand, but that should not necessarily hold back you
from working on it and posting it. You just do your own development
with this patches here applied and then, when posting the series
containing (**only***) the remaining patches, you specify _clearly_, in
the cover letter, what other series/patches are a prerequisite.

That way, people can start reviewing your remaining patches.

This is not something that can, IMO, always be done. It highly depends
on how the interdependent patch series actually look like. In fact, if
either one (or both!) is (are) too big or too complex, it's probably
useless (no one would look at the second one anyway) and unfair (it's
going to be a lot of work for the reviewer). But in this case, I think
it would be just fine.

Having a git branch somewhere with the both the series applied would
also help a lot, but only if that is possible (and again, in this case,
it's probably not too big of a deal anyway).

Regards,
Dario
-- 
<<This happens because I choose it to happen!>> (Raistlin Majere)
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Dario Faggioli, Ph.D, http://about.me/dario.faggioli
Senior Software Engineer, Citrix Systems R&D Ltd., Cambridge (UK)

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

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