On Wed, 25 Jul 2012 23:32:16 +0200 Daniel Vetter <daniel at ffwll.ch> wrote: > On Wed, Jul 25, 2012 at 02:25:20PM -0700, Ben Widawsky wrote: > > On Tue, 24 Jul 2012 23:33:49 +0200 > > Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> wrote: > > > > > Like with the equivalent change for gen6+ rps state, this helps in > > > clarifying the code (and in fixing a few places that have fallen through > > > the cracks in the locking review). > > > > > > Signed-off-by: Daniel Vetter <daniel.vetter at ffwll.ch> > > > > I don't think this patch is necessary, and doesn't belong in the series. > > The series was about fixing a locking problem. If you want to submit > > this as a separate patch, I'd prefer it. > > > > If you're really determined to keep it, I'd roll it into the earlier > > patches that did the rps renaming. > > Well, you've already smashed your r-b onto the equivalent patch for the > gen6+ rps code. But the real reason this belongs to this series is that > I've used this rename (and the rps one) to actually figure out (with the > help of the compiler) what is actually touched where and which parts > belong together. 'Cause the current code is a rather decent mess. > > -Daniel You've shot down quite a few patches of mine (usually assertions) which I've used for similar, 'this helped me track down an issue' purposes. In any case, the r-b on the other one is because you're restructuring the code you want to fix, before you fix it. That is fine. As I said, if you want to put this as a beautifier, I don't think it belongs in the series. -- Ben Widawsky, Intel Open Source Technology Center
