Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 16/19] xen/arm: Introduce a macro to synchronize SError

[Julien Grall <julien.grall@xxxxxxx>]

Hi Wei,

On 05/04/2017 08:35, Wei Chen wrote:
> On 2017/4/5 15:29, Julien Grall wrote:
> > On 05/04/2017 08:14, Wei Chen wrote:
> > > > Because the ASSERT I suggested was wrong, sorry for that. It should
> > > > have
> > > > been:
> > > >
> > > > ASSERT(!cpus_have_cap(feat) && local_abort_is_enabled());
> > > >
> > > > This is because we want abort enabled when the "feature" is not
> > > > present.
> > > >
> > > > This series looks good so far, so I would be happy if you send a
> > > > follow-up patch to add the ASSERT rather than modifying this patch.
> > > I will send a follow-up patch after this series has been done.
> > Well, you have to resend this series. So why don't you add the ASSERT in
> > the new version?
> I am happy to do that. I misunderstood this comment "rather than
> modifying this patch".
My point was if you didn't need to resend the series, I would have been 
happy to see a follow-up avoiding sending 19 patches again for a small fix.
> I will add a patch in this series for ASSERT.
Again, as you resend the series. Why don't you update this patch to add 
the ASSERT?
Cheers,

--
Julien Grall

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