On June 19, 2023 11:47:08 AM PDT, "Li, Xin3" <xin3.li@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> > To me it's better to keep the changes in one patch, thus the >> > differences are more obvious. >> >> The rename to vector_schedule_cleanup() can be obviously done first. > >Okay, it's a bit wired to me to rename before any actual code logic change. > Weird or not, that's the established practice. However, if you think about it, it makes sense: that way your code logic patch doesn't contain a bunch of names which will almost immediately be outdated. That is *really* confusing when you are going back through the git history, for example. >> >> > We need a second patch to do vector cleanup in lapic_offline() in case >> > the vector cleanup timer has not expired. >> >> Right. I was lazy and just put a WARN_ON() there under the assumption that you >> will figure it out. > >I see that, as your changes to lapic_offline() are completely new. > >> But a second patch? >> >> We don't switch things over into a broken state first and then fix it up afterwards. > >Make sense! >
