>>> On 04.03.16 at 14:59, <dario.faggi...@citrix.com> wrote: > On Fri, 2016-03-04 at 11:54 +0000, Xu, Quan wrote: >> On March 04, 2016 5:29pm, <jbeul...@suse.com> wrote: >> > To be honest, changes like this would better not be buried in a big >> > rework like >> > the one here. Make it a prereq patch, where you then will kind of >> > automatically >> > describe why it's correct. (I agree current code is bogus, and >> > we're not hitting >> > the respective >> > BUG_ON() in check_lock() only because spin_debug gets set to true >> > only after >> > most __init code has run.) >> Agreed, I would make a prereq patch in v7. >> > Ok. In general, I agree with Jan. > > In this case, I suggested just mentioning in changelog as we curently > basically have a bug, and I think it would be fine to have something > like "Doing what we do also serves as a fix for a bug found in xxx > yyy". > > But it's indeed Jan's call, and his solution is certainly cleaner.
Well, one of the reasons to separate out bug fixes is to make them backportable. Jan _______________________________________________ Xen-devel mailing list Xen-devel@lists.xen.org http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel
