----- On Aug 5, 2021, at 3:38 PM, rostedt rostedt@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > 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. OK, so you version the entire patch series in one go. It makes sense. > >> > 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. Perfect, thanks! Mathieu > > -- Steve > >> >> Calling out more clearly how slow things become with this patch is indeed >> important. >> >> > >> >> -- Mathieu Desnoyers EfficiOS Inc. http://www.efficios.com
