> On 9 Jun 2023, at 11:06, Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>
> On 08/06/2023 8:37 pm, Luca Fancellu wrote:
>>> On 8 Jun 2023, at 18:40, Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> MASK_EXTR() and MASK_INSR() are a matching pair. Keep them together.
>>>
>>> Fixes: 56a7aaa16bfe ("tools: add physinfo arch_capabilities handling for
>>> Arm")
>> I don’t think this patch is fixing a bug:
>>
>> ### Fixes:
>>
>> If your patch fixes a bug in a specific commit, e.g. you found an issue using
>> ``git bisect``, please use the `Fixes:` tag with the first 12 characters of
>> the commit id, and the one line summary.
>
> That a poor explanation...
>
> Fixes: is about corrections to the patch, not bugs.
>
> 56a7aaa16bfe is unlikely to be backported, but if a downstream were to
> backport your SVE patches, Fixes: identify all other patches they need
> to take.
>
> Fixes: was specifically invented to let tooling (partially) automate the
> task if finding new patches to backport, based on what had already been
> backported.
Ok this makes sense, so that a tool can easily understand where to put the
focus.
>
> Concrete bugs are the majority reason for a Fixes tag, sure, but not the
> only reason. In this case, a downstream absolutely doesn't want to get
> into a position where these macros aren't together in a pair, because it
> there will be a case in the future where it causes a build error.
>
>>> Signed-off-by: Andrew Cooper <andrew.coop...@citrix.com>
>> But it makes sense, so
>>
>> Reviewed-by: Luca Fancellu <luca.fance...@arm.com>
>
> Thanks. As you've already indicated that you're ok with fixing up
> x86-emulate.h in v2, I'll retain this.
sure, thanks for fixing it
>
> ~Andrew
