On Fri, 7 Jun 2019 20:06:12 +0200 Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 6/7/19 8:02 PM, Eric Blake wrote: > > On 6/7/19 10:37 AM, Philippe Mathieu-Daudé wrote: > >> Rename macros. > > > > Why is this marked '!fixup' in the subject instead of just merging the > > patches directly? > > Since all the series is reviewed/tested and Igor asked to amend a fixup > but we are having hard time to figure if we understand Igor request > correctly, I thought it would be easier for him to review this way, then > for Richard to squash the patches and send the pull request. I've explicitly asked for merging if I'm not mistaken. > Is it confuse/bad practice? it's confusing at least for me, since I have to review broken patch and fix ups on top doing merge in my head and still won't be sure if I've missed something in process on not. (Fix ups are fine for trivial change that affect only one patch, which isn't case here) Please respin. > > In the cover I wrote: > > If Igor aggrees with the fixup patches, Richard, can you squash > them and send a pull request? (without the last patch, which is > expected to go via Eduardo's tree, but since it is helpful for > testing this series, I included it). > > >> > >> Signed-off-by: Richard Henderson <richard.hender...@linaro.org> > >> Signed-off-by: Philippe Mathieu-Daudé <phi...@redhat.com> > >> --- > >> target/rx/cpu.c | 22 ++++++++++++++-------- > >> target/rx/cpu.h | 12 ++++++------ > >> 2 files changed, 20 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-) > >>
