[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [PATCH][RESEND] xen/arm: vgic-v3: fix GICD_ISACTIVER range

+ George

On Sat, 18 Apr 2020, Julien Grall wrote:
> Hi,
> On 18/04/2020 00:12, Stefano Stabellini wrote:
> > On Fri, 17 Apr 2020, Julien Grall wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > > 
> > > The title claim this is a resend, but this is actually not the latest
> > > version of this patch. Can you explain why you decided to use v1
> > > rather than v2?
> > 
> > Because v2 added a printk for every read, and I thought you only wanted
> > the range fix. Also, the printk is not a "warn once" so after the
> > discussion where it became apparent that the register can be read many
> > times, it sounded undesirable.
> You previously mentionned that you will use Peng's patch. From my perspective,
> this meant you are using the latest version of a patch not a previous one.
> So this was a bit of a surprised to me.
> > 
> > Nonetheless I don't have a strong preference between the two. If you
> > prefer v2 it is here:
> > 
> > https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=157440872522065
> I understand the "warn" issue but we did agree with it back then. I am ok to
> drop it. However, may I request to be more forthcoming in your patch in the
> future?
> For instance in this case, this a link to the original patch and an
> explanation why you selected v1 would have been really useful.

That's a good point, I can add it. So, for clarity, I'll keep v1 but
expand on the commit message to say that we kept v1 to avoid spamming
the console.

> > Do you need me to resent it? If it is OK for you as-is, you can give
> > your ack here, and I'll go ahead and commit it.
> > 
> > 
> > > On Fri, 17 Apr 2020 at 23:16, Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > > > 
> > > > From: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> > > > 
> > > > The end should be GICD_ISACTIVERN not GICD_ISACTIVER.
> > > > 
> > > > (See https://marc.info/?l=xen-devel&m=158527653730795 for a discussion
> > > > on
> > > > what it would take to implement GICD_ISACTIVER/GICD_ICACTIVER properly.)
> > > > 
> > > > Signed-off-by: Peng Fan <peng.fan@xxxxxxx>
> > > > Signed-off-by: Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > > Reviewed-by: Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > > 
> > > I don't think you can be at the same time an author of the patch and a
> > > reviewer. Otherwise, I could review my own patch ;).
> > 
> > Yeah ... that was not the intention. I changed the commit message so I
> > had to add my signed-off-by for copyright reasons.
> > At the same time I
> > reviewed it even before changing the commit message so I added the
> > reviewed-by. I agree it looks kind of weird.
> I don't feel this should go as-is. It is not clear in the commit message the
> changes you did and could lead confusion once merged. One may think you
> reviewed your own patch.
> In general when I tweak a commit message, I will not add my signed-off-by but
> just add [julieng: Tweak commit message] above my reviewed-by/acked-by tag.
> Alternatively, you can remove your reviewed-by and let another maintainer
> reviewing it.
> I will let you decide your preference and resend the patch appropriately.
The Linux policy on Signed-off-by is really strict: basically any time a
person touches a patch, even just to commit the patch (no changes to
it), they add a Signed-off-by. So it is common there and other projects
to have both Signed-off-by and Reviewed-by from the same individual. For
instance on Linux:

commit b2a84de2a2deb76a6a51609845341f508c518c03

    Reported-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Acked-by: Linus Torvalds <torvalds@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Will Deacon <will@xxxxxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>

commit 33e45234987ea3ed4b05fc512f4441696478f12d

    Reviewed-by: Kees Cook <keescook@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
    Reviewed-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>
    Reviewed-by: Vincenzo Frascino <Vincenzo.Frascino@xxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Kristina Martsenko <kristina.martsenko@xxxxxxx>
    [Amit: Modified secondary cores key structure, comments]
    Signed-off-by: Amit Daniel Kachhap <amit.kachhap@xxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@xxxxxxx>


commit 22cd0945b8429f818a2d90f06f02bb526bfb319d

    Signed-off-by: Francisco Iglesias <frasse.iglesias@xxxxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xxxxxxxxxx>
    Reviewed-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xxxxxxxxxx>
    Message-id: 20180503214201.29082-2-frasse.iglesias@xxxxxxxxx
    Signed-off-by: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@xxxxxxxxxx>

commit 133d23b3ad1be53105b9950fb18858cf059f2da6

    Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@xxxxxxxxxx>
    Reviewed-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xxxxxxxxxx>
    Signed-off-by: Edgar E. Iglesias <edgar.iglesias@xxxxxxxxxx>

Your suggestion of adding something between brackets like:

  [stefano: update commit message] 

is good because it clarifies things and I'd like to do that. But still,
I think it would require the addition of my Signed-off-by. At the same
time it doesn't look like we want to avoiding adding a Reviewed-by
because a reviewer made a change to the commit message too?

Of course, for this patch, I am happy to drop my Reviewed-by and resend
and I'll do that. But I think it would be worth clarifying this point at
the project level. George, do we or the LinuxFoundation have a policy on
whether we can or cannot have reviewed-by and signed-off-by from the same



Lists.xenproject.org is hosted with RackSpace, monitoring our
servers 24x7x365 and backed by RackSpace's Fanatical Support®.