Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v2 2/2] arm: rename tiny64.conf to tiny64_defconfig

[Volodymyr Babchuk <Volodymyr_Babchuk@xxxxxxxx>]

Hi Julien,

Julien Grall writes:

> Hi Volodymyr,
>
> Sorry for the late reply.
It's okay, no worries.

> On 5/20/19 3:57 PM, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>>
>> Julien Grall writes:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> On 20/05/2019 14:41, Volodymyr Babchuk wrote:
>>>> Julien Grall writes:
>>>>
>>>>> Hi,
>>>>>
>>>>> First of all, please add a cover letter when you send a series. This
>>>>> help for threading and also a place to commend on general feedback.
>>>> Oh, okay. That was quite simple change and I didn't wanted to spam with
>>>> extra emails. I will include cover letter next time.
>>>>
>>>>> Furthermore, please use scripts/{add, get}_maintainers.pl to find the
>>>>> correct maintainers. While I agree that CCing REST is a good idea, you
>>>>> haven't CCed all of them.
>>>> Problem is that I used this script:
>>>>
>>>> $ ./scripts/get_maintainer.pl -f 
>>>> defconfig_v2/v2-0002-arm-rename-tiny64.conf-to-tiny64_defconfig.patch
[...]
>>
>> Contents of the patch is the exactly the same as in my original
>> email. You can find both patches at [1].
>
> It looks like the problem is because the second patch only contains
> renaming. Linux recently fixed it with the following commit:
>
> 0455c74788fd "get_maintainer: improve patch recognition"
>
> I guess we need to port the patch in Xen. Volodymyr, would you mind to
> send a patch for it?
Yes, I have sent it. It is the first time I'm sending ported patches. I
hope, I did it in the right way :)


[...]
>>>>
>>>> and
>>>>
>>>> # make tiny64_defconfig
>>>
>>> ... this one will hide the questions.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Anyways, it is up to you to accept or decline this particular patch. I
>>>> mostly interested in the first patch in the series, because our build
>>>> system depends on it. This very patch I sent out only because I wanted
>>>> to tidy up things a bit. But if you are saying that it is intended to
>>>> store minimal config in this way, I'm okay with it.
>>>
>>> The point of review is to discuss on the approach and find a common 
>>> agreement.
>>>
>>> If you read my previous e-mail, I didn't completely reject the
>>> approach in my previous e-mail. I pointed out that the user may be
>>> misled of the name and hence documentation would be useful.
>>
>> I'm okay with this. Any ideas how to document it?
>
> We don't seem to have a place today where we document the defconfig. I
> am thinking to put that in docs/misc/arm.
>
> I would document the purpose of each config. The documentation could
> be in a separate patch.
Okay. Will it be okay, if I'll send it as a separate patch? You can
commit all three patches in a row. Or should I sent another version with
all three patches?

-- 
Best regards,Volodymyr Babchuk
_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
https://lists.xenproject.org/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel