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

[Stefano Stabellini <sstabellini@xxxxxxxxxx>]

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.

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

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.