Messages in this thread | | | Date | Fri, 2 Jun 2023 17:59:43 +0800 | Subject | Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault() | From | Kefeng Wang <> |
| |
On 2023/6/2 17:51, Ard Biesheuvel wrote: > On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 11:49, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org> wrote: >> >> On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 16:32, Russell King (Oracle) >> <linux@armlinux.org.uk> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, May 29, 2021 at 11:41:37AM +0800, Kefeng Wang wrote: >>>> 1. cleanup access_error(), make vma flags set and check into >>>> __do_page_fault() and do_page_fault() directly. >>>> >>>> 2. drop fsr and task argument, instead, using vm_flags in >>>> __do_page_fault(). >>>> >>>> 3. cleans up the multiple goto statements in __do_page_fault(). >>>> >>>> 4. use current->mm directly in do_page_fault(). >>>> >>>> Signed-off-by: Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> >>> >>> This patch is a really good example of something that is very difficult >>> to review and see that there are no unintended changes. >>> >>> Many people have complained about my patches, where I create a series of >>> many patches where each patch does exactly _one_ simple transformation to >>> the code. This is a good example _why_ I do that - a step by step single >>> transformation approach is way easier to review. >>> >>> Sorry, but I'm not able to sensibly review this patch, and therefore >>> I won't apply it. Please split it into smaller changes. >>> >> >> Agreed. If your commit message contains an enumeration of things the >> patch does, it is a very strong hint that each of those things needs >> to be a separate patch if at all possible.
Yes, already split it and the new version is merged, > > Also, apologies for digging up this 2 year old thread :-) I did so > unintentionally.
Never mind, thank for all kind of reviews :) > > (Somehow, it turned up as new/unread in my LAKML folder)
| |