Re: [PULL v2 03/32] riscv: Generalize CPU init routine for the base CPU

[Markus Armbruster]

Bin Meng <bmeng.cn@gmail.com> writes:

> Hi Alistair,
>
> On Sat, Jun 20, 2020 at 1:09 AM Alistair Francis
> <alistair.francis@wdc.com> wrote:
>>
>> From: Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com>
>>
>> There is no need to have two functions that have exactly the same
>> codes for 32-bit and 64-bit base CPUs.
>>
>> Signed-off-by: Bin Meng <bin.meng@windriver.com>
>> Reviewed-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
>> Message-id: 1591837729-27486-1-git-send-email-bmeng.cn@gmail.com
>> Message-Id: <1591837729-27486-1-git-send-email-bmeng.cn@gmail.com>
>
> I noticed that patches from other people than you have the
> "Message-id" tags, but your patch [1] does not. Is this intentional?
>
> (not sure why we need 2 "Message-id" tags here, with one has <> ?)

We don't.  Looks like an accident.

> Just want to know what's the best practice here.

The Message-Id tag's purpose is connecting commits back to the mailing
list.  Useful when you want to look up their review later.

To get them into git, maintainers should use git-am -m to apply
patches.  I have

    [am]
            messageid = true

in my .gitconfig.

Maintainers may be tempted to use git-rebase or git-cherry-pick instead
for patches they already have in their local git (such as their own
patches).  No good, because we don't get the Message-Id that way.

Patch submissions (as opposed to pull requests) generally do not have
Message-Id tags in commit messages.

Hope this helps!

>> Signed-off-by: Alistair Francis <alistair.francis@wdc.com>
>> ---
>>  target/riscv/cpu.c | 18 +++++-------------
>>  1 file changed, 5 insertions(+), 13 deletions(-)
>>
>
> [1] https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/qemu-devel/2020-06/msg06208.html
>
> Regards,
> Bin