On Thu, 5 Aug 2021 15:15:43 -0400 (EDT) Mathieu Desnoyers <mathieu.desnoyers@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > ----- On Aug 5, 2021, at 2:56 PM, rostedt rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > > Note, there shouldn't be a "(v2)" outside the "[PATCH ]" part. > > Otherwise it gets added into the git commit during "git am". > > Out of curiosity, do you know any way to annotate my local commits to have the > [PATCH v2] tag automatically generated by git send-email ? I pass -v2 to git send-email, and it adds the v2 for me. > > This is a big enough regression, I'll even add a Fixes tag to the next > > patch on the final sha1 of this patch! Such that this patch won't be > > backported without the next patch. > > This makes sense. I still wanted to keep the two patches separate so we would > introduce the (slow) state machine in the first patch, and optimize for > speed in the second. My intent is to facilitate of small logical changes, > and make bisection more precise in the future if we introduce an issue > here. I agree which is why I didn't ask you to fold them. The logic in this code was a big enough change, where I agree it should be kept separate. Unfortunately, it caused a huge performance regression :-(, but at the same time, fixed a correctness issue, which Thomas always says that correctness trumps performance. But the compromise is to add a Fixes tag to the next patch and document why they are separated, but still required to act as "one". I'll add that commentary. -- Steve > > Calling out more clearly how slow things become with this patch is indeed > important. > > > > >> >
