RE: [PATCH v8 01/33] x86/traps: let common_interrupt() handle IRQ_MOVE_CLEANUP_VECTOR

[H. Peter Anvin]

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it, it makes sense: that way your code logic patch doesn't contain a bunch of names which will almost immediately be outdated.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!
>