RE: [PATCH v2 0/3] Add support for Fujitsu A64FX processor

[address@hidden]

> I'm afraid this isn't the way a v2 patchseries should be structured.
> The idea is that a v2 series should be complete in itself, not based on 
> whatever v1
> was. So when you make the changes requested in review of v1, you update the
> commits in your local git branch, and then you send out the patches as the 
> v2. v2
> should apply cleanly on to master, and all the patches in it should be 
> logically
> separated out changes (with no "patch 1 makes a change and then patch 2
> changes the code that was added in patch 1" effects).

Thank you for comments.
We apologize for the inconvenience caused by our lack of understanding.
I understood your point.

Just to confirm, 
should I update to v3 and resubmit it as a patch series based on the points you 
mentioned?

Best regards.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Peter Maydell <peter.maydell@linaro.org>
> Sent: Friday, July 30, 2021 7:39 PM
> To: Ishii, Shuuichirou/石井 周一郎 <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com>
> Cc: qemu-arm <qemu-arm@nongnu.org>; QEMU Developers
> <qemu-devel@nongnu.org>
> Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/3] Add support for Fujitsu A64FX processor
> 
> On Fri, 30 Jul 2021 at 04:08, Shuuichirou Ishii <ishii.shuuichir@fujitsu.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > This is the v2 patch series.
> >
> > v2:
> > No features have been added or removed from the v1 patch series.
> > Removal of unused definitions that were added in excess, and
> > consolidation of patches for the purpose of functional consistency.
> >
> > For patch 1, ARM_FEATURE_A64FX is not used in the v1 patch series, so
> > it was deleted this time, and will be added again when it is used.
> >
> > For patch 2, since the a64fx_cp_reginfo structure is not used in the
> > v1 patch series, I deleted the empty definition and added the TODO in
> > the aarch64_a64fx_initfn function. Also fixed the appearance, and
> > cleaned up and removed some things for patch consistency.
> >
> > For patch 3, a64fx was added to docs/system/arm/virt.rst and
> > hw/arm/virt.c respectively, as a modification to the patch consistency
> > cleanup done in patch 2.
> 
> I'm afraid this isn't the way a v2 patchseries should be structured.
> The idea is that a v2 series should be complete in itself, not based on 
> whatever v1
> was. So when you make the changes requested in review of v1, you update the
> commits in your local git branch, and then you send out the patches as the 
> v2. v2
> should apply cleanly on to master, and all the patches in it should be 
> logically
> separated out changes (with no "patch 1 makes a change and then patch 2
> changes the code that was added in patch 1" effects).
> 
> thanks
> -- PMM