From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "Jan Beulich" Subject: Re: [v4][PATCH 03/19] xen/vtd: create RMRR mapping Date: Wed, 24 Jun 2015 08:33:34 +0100 Message-ID: <558A796E0200007800088B21@mail.emea.novell.com> References: <1435053450-25131-1-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <1435053450-25131-4-git-send-email-tiejun.chen@intel.com> <55894D4902000078000881D3@mail.emea.novell.com> <558A03CD.3090206@intel.com> <558A6ED30200007800088AD9@mail.emea.novell.com> <558A5BA8.9040703@intel.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <558A5BA8.9040703@intel.com> Content-Disposition: inline List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Tiejun Chen Cc: Yang Zhang , Kevin Tian , Tim Deegan , xen-devel@lists.xen.org List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org >>> On 24.06.15 at 09:26, wrote: >> This would need to go into patch 2; I wonder whether folding that > > Yes. > >> and this one wouldn't be warranted, avoiding the former adding > > Are you saying to fold patch #2 and patch #3? But shouldn't we always > define a new and then use that in practice subsequently? Even with two > patches, respectively. It's a matter of taste to some degree. Unless patches are really involved, I prefer them not to add dead code. Apart from eliminating the case of the code remaining dead (perhaps for extended periods of time) if only parts of a series get applied, it also generally helps review if one can see the consumer of a newly added function right away. Jan