> On 10 May 2022, at 03:03, Stefano Stabellini <sstabell...@kernel.org> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 4 May 2022, Julien Grall wrote:
>>> Do I understand right that it is ok for you if I push one patch mentioning
>>> all the commits done in Linux corresponding to the changes (instead of one
>>> patch per commit) ?
>>
>> For this case yes.
>
> I managed to do a review of the patch by doing a diff of the relevant
> portion of Xen cpufeature.c with Linux cpufeature.c (from commit
> b2d229d4ddb1), and the relevant portion of Xen sysregs.h with Linux
> sysregs.h (diff -E -b -u).
>
> Everything checks out.
>
> In my opinion, this patch should be split in 2 patches: the changes to
> cpufeature.c and sysregs.c that come from the Linux sources; and the
> updates to cpufeature.h that do not. If you do that you can add my
> reviewed-by to the first patch with the changes from Linux.
>
> The list of individual commit IDs would be nice, but thanksfully the two
> source files are still "diffable" so in my opinion are not required.
I agree with that.
Julien: Do you agree if I just put the changes to cpufeature.h in a separate
patch ?
I started to list the commit IDs corresponding to the changes in Linux and this
would
end up with 5 or more which I do not think would be that useful as the diff can
be easily
done as Stefano mentioned.
>
> I have a couple of comments on the changes to cpufeature.h (the ones not
> from Linux) which I'll reply directly to the patch.
I will answer to them.
Cheers
Bertrand
