From: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Cc: mpe@ellerman.id.au, benh@kernel.crashing.org, paulus@samba.org,
mikey@neuling.org, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org,
linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, npiggin@gmail.com,
naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com,
Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] Powerpc/hw-breakpoint: Refactor hw_breakpoint_arch_parse()
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:40:52 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <35d3cdbc-4216-f103-1cea-4413c0933dbd@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <66e70f57-befa-f241-9476-8e06519bac90@c-s.fr>
On 6/18/19 11:51 AM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 18/06/2019 à 06:27, Ravi Bangoria a écrit :
>> Move feature availability check at the start of the function.
>> Rearrange comment to it's associated code. Use hw->address and
>> hw->len in the 512 bytes boundary check(to write if statement
>> in a single line). Add spacing between code blocks.
>
> Are those cosmetic changes in the boundary check worth it since they disappear in the final patch ?
Nope.. not necessary. I was just going bit more patch by patch.
I don't mind keeping the code as it is and then change it in
the final patch.
WARNING: multiple messages have this Message-ID (diff)
From: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>
To: Christophe Leroy <christophe.leroy@c-s.fr>
Cc: Ravi Bangoria <ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com>,
mikey@neuling.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
npiggin@gmail.com, paulus@samba.org,
naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com, linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/5] Powerpc/hw-breakpoint: Refactor hw_breakpoint_arch_parse()
Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2019 12:40:52 +0530 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <35d3cdbc-4216-f103-1cea-4413c0933dbd@linux.ibm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <66e70f57-befa-f241-9476-8e06519bac90@c-s.fr>
On 6/18/19 11:51 AM, Christophe Leroy wrote:
>
>
> Le 18/06/2019 à 06:27, Ravi Bangoria a écrit :
>> Move feature availability check at the start of the function.
>> Rearrange comment to it's associated code. Use hw->address and
>> hw->len in the 512 bytes boundary check(to write if statement
>> in a single line). Add spacing between code blocks.
>
> Are those cosmetic changes in the boundary check worth it since they disappear in the final patch ?
Nope.. not necessary. I was just going bit more patch by patch.
I don't mind keeping the code as it is and then change it in
the final patch.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2019-06-18 7:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 48+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2019-06-18 4:27 [PATCH 0/5] Powerpc/hw-breakpoint: Fixes plus Code refactor Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 4:27 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 4:27 ` [PATCH 1/5] Powerpc/hw-breakpoint: Replace stale do_dabr() with do_break() Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 4:27 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 6:02 ` Michael Neuling
2019-06-18 6:02 ` Michael Neuling
2019-06-18 6:14 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-18 6:14 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-18 4:27 ` [PATCH 2/5] Powerpc/hw-breakpoint: Refactor hw_breakpoint_arch_parse() Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 4:27 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 6:21 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-18 6:21 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-18 7:10 ` Ravi Bangoria [this message]
2019-06-18 7:10 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 4:27 ` [PATCH 3/5] Powerpc/hw-breakpoint: Refactor set_dawr() Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 4:27 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 6:11 ` Michael Neuling
2019-06-18 6:11 ` Michael Neuling
2019-06-18 7:13 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 7:13 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 6:24 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-18 6:24 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-18 4:27 ` [PATCH 4/5] Powerpc/hw-breakpoint: Optimize disable path Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 4:27 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 6:15 ` Michael Neuling
2019-06-18 6:15 ` Michael Neuling
2019-06-19 6:02 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-19 6:02 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 6:31 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-18 6:31 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-19 6:14 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-19 6:14 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 4:27 ` [PATCH 5/5] Powerpc/Watchpoint: Fix length calculation for unaligned target Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 4:27 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 6:46 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-18 6:46 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-19 6:51 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-19 6:51 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 13:32 ` Michael Neuling
2019-06-18 13:32 ` Michael Neuling
2019-06-19 7:45 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-19 7:45 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-18 6:01 ` [PATCH 0/5] Powerpc/hw-breakpoint: Fixes plus Code refactor Christophe Leroy
2019-06-18 6:01 ` Christophe Leroy
2019-06-18 6:17 ` Michael Neuling
2019-06-18 6:17 ` Michael Neuling
2019-06-19 7:47 ` Ravi Bangoria
2019-06-19 7:47 ` Ravi Bangoria
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=35d3cdbc-4216-f103-1cea-4413c0933dbd@linux.ibm.com \
--to=ravi.bangoria@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=benh@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=christophe.leroy@c-s.fr \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=linuxppc-dev@lists.ozlabs.org \
--cc=mikey@neuling.org \
--cc=mpe@ellerman.id.au \
--cc=naveen.n.rao@linux.vnet.ibm.com \
--cc=npiggin@gmail.com \
--cc=paulus@samba.org \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is an external index of several public inboxes,
see mirroring instructions on how to clone and mirror
all data and code used by this external index.