From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vijay Kilari Subject: Re: [PATCH v5 05/22] xen/arm: ITS: Port ITS driver to Xen Date: Wed, 29 Jul 2015 21:48:21 +0530 Message-ID: References: <1437995524-19772-1-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com> <1437995524-19772-6-git-send-email-vijay.kilari@gmail.com> <55B7B1E4.1070207@citrix.com> <1438185978.11600.217.camel@citrix.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: In-Reply-To: <1438185978.11600.217.camel@citrix.com> List-Unsubscribe: , List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org To: Ian Campbell Cc: Stefano Stabellini , Prasun Kapoor , manish.jaggi@caviumnetworks.com, Tim Deegan , "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" , Julien Grall , Stefano Stabellini , Vijaya Kumar K List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org On Wed, Jul 29, 2015 at 9:36 PM, Ian Campbell wrote: > On Wed, 2015-07-29 at 20:52 +0530, Vijay Kilari wrote: >> Hi Julien, >> >> Can you please explain what is the problem with making a function >> non-static for compilation purpose and later make it static when used? > > It's noise in the series, which makes it harder to review and it is noise > in the history which makes it hard to follow what happened. > > You should structure the series so that each patch individually makes sense > and builds upon the previous patches. Introducing things only to remove > them later, or making the non-static just to keep the compiler happy until > they are used is a sign that your series is badly organised, which you > should fix. I understand, it is tough to manage 4000+ lines of code. I will try my best in my next series. but I _cannot_ assure 100% ;-) > >> In anycase we are going to merge all the patches at once. > > I'm afraid that doesn't matter, each point in the series should standalone. > > http://wiki.xen.org/wiki/Submitting_Xen_Patches#Making_good_patches covers > some of this. > > Ian. >