Re: [PATCH v8 0/6] Device tree based NUMA support for Arm - Part#2

[Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>]

On 14.11.2022 09:14, Wei Chen wrote:
> Hi Jan,
> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jan Beulich <jbeulich@xxxxxxxx>
>> Sent: 2022年11月14日 16:05
>> To: Wei Chen <Wei.Chen@xxxxxxx>
>> Cc: nd <nd@xxxxxxx>; Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@xxxxxxxxxx>; Roger Pau
>> Monné <roger.pau@xxxxxxxxxx>; Wei Liu <wl@xxxxxxx>; George Dunlap
>> <george.dunlap@xxxxxxxxxx>; Julien Grall <julien@xxxxxxx>; Stefano
>> Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>; xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [PATCH v8 0/6] Device tree based NUMA support for Arm -
>> Part#2
>>> So in this patch series, we implement a set of NUMA API to use
>>> device tree to describe the NUMA layout. We reuse most of the
>>> code of x86 NUMA to create and maintain the mapping between
>>> memory and CPU, create the matrix between any two NUMA nodes.
>>> Except ACPI and some x86 specified code, we have moved other
>>> code to common. In next stage, when we implement ACPI based
>>> NUMA for Arm64, we may move the ACPI NUMA code to common too,
>>> but in current stage, we keep it as x86 only.
>>>
>>> This patch serires has been tested and booted well on one
>>> Arm64 NUMA machine and one HPE x86 NUMA machine.
>>>
>>> [1] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2022-
>> 06/msg00499.html
>>> [2] https://lists.xenproject.org/archives/html/xen-devel/2021-
>> 09/msg01903.html
>>>
>>> ---
>>> v7 -> v8:
>>>  1. Rebase code to resolve merge conflict.
>>
>> You mention this here but not in any of the patches. Which leaves
>> reviewers guessing where the re-base actually was: Re-bases, at
>> least sometimes, also need (re-)reviewing.
>>
> 
> I just applied the v7 to the latest staging branch, this work has not
> Generated any new change for this series. I should have described it
> clear or not mentioned this in cover letter. Sorry for confusing you!

But you talk about a merge conflict. And that's what I refer to when
saying "may need (re-)reviewing". The same happened during earlier
versions of the series, except there I was aware of what you needed
to re-base over because it was changes I had done (addressing
observations made while reviewing your changes). This time round I'm
simply not aware of what change(s) you needed to re-base over (which
is why I pointed out that it is generally helpful to indicate on a
per-patch basis when non-trivial re-basing was involved).

Jan