On Wed, May 27, 2015 at 09:19:03AM -0600, Toshi Kani wrote:
This patch refactors the !pat_enabled code paths and integrates
Please refrain from using such empty phrases like "This patch does this
and that" in your commit messages - it is implicitly obvious that it is
"this patch" when one reads it.
them into the PAT abstraction code. The PAT table is emulated by
corresponding to the two cache attribute bits, PWT (Write Through)
and PCD (Cache Disable). The emulated PAT table is the same as the
BIOS default setup when the system has PAT but the "nopat" boot
option is specified. The emulated PAT table is also used when
MSR_IA32_CR_PAT returns 0 (9d34cfdf4).
9d34cfdf4 - what is that thing? A commit message? If so, we quote them
like this:
9d34cfdf4796 ("x86: Don't rely on VMWare emulating PAT MSR correctly")
note the 12 chars length of the commit id.
Signed-off-by: Toshi Kani <toshi.kani(a)hp.com>
Reviewed-by: Juergen Gross <jgross(a)suse.com>
---
arch/x86/mm/init.c | 6 ++--
arch/x86/mm/iomap_32.c | 12 ++++---
arch/x86/mm/ioremap.c | 10 +-----
arch/x86/mm/pageattr.c | 6 ----
arch/x86/mm/pat.c | 77 +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++-------------------
5 files changed, 57 insertions(+), 54 deletions(-)
So I started applying your pile and everything was ok-ish until I came
about this trainwreck. You have a lot of changes in here, the commit
message is certainly lacking sufficient explanation as to why and this
patch is changing stuff which the previous one adds.
So a lot of unnecesary code movement.
Then you have stuff like this:
+ } else if (!cpu_has_pat && pat_enabled) {
How can a CPU not have PAT but have it enabled?!?
So this is not how we do patchsets.
Please do the cleanups *first*. Do them in small, self-contained changes
explaining *why* you're doing them.
*Then* add the new functionality, .i.e. the WT.
Oh, and when you do your next version, do the patches against tip/master
because there are a bunch of changes in the PAT code already.
Thanks.
--
Regards/Gruss,
Boris.
ECO tip #101: Trim your mails when you reply.
--