Date:   Tue, 21 Dec 2021 11:49:06 +0100
From:   Borislav Petkov <bp@alien8.de>
To:     Lai Jiangshan <laijs@linux.alibaba.com>
Cc:     Lai Jiangshan <jiangshanlai@gmail.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org,
        Andy Lutomirski <luto@kernel.org>,
        Thomas Gleixner <tglx@linutronix.de>,
        Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>,
        Dave Hansen <dave.hansen@linux.intel.com>,
        "H. Peter Anvin" <hpa@zytor.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/4] x86/entry: Make paranoid_exit() callable
Message-ID: <YcGxInsnz2/cO5Wm@zn.tnic>
References: <20211213150340.9419-1-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
 <20211213150340.9419-2-jiangshanlai@gmail.com>
 <YcDR92+JFkVAZi5c@zn.tnic>
 <582ad344-7b89-f43f-e8e9-e2d19f7b41b3@linux.alibaba.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <582ad344-7b89-f43f-e8e9-e2d19f7b41b3@linux.alibaba.com>
Precedence: bulk

On Tue, Dec 21, 2021 at 10:22:48AM +0800, Lai Jiangshan wrote:
> When paranoid_exit() is ready to be converted to C, it can't have jump to
> any label that is not in paranoid_exit() itself.

Then splitting out those 4 patches from the rest of the series was not
the right thing to do. Because how is a reviewer to know what your final
goal is without seeing it?

When I told you at the time that you could split the big patchset out, I
said:

"It might be even helpful if you could split it into more palatable
portions of maybe 10-ish patches each, if possible, and then send the
first portion, wait for review and only send the second portion after
the first has been applied, etc."

Maybe I should have explained what "if possible" means: if a subset can
exist on its own and is logically separate, then it should be split.
But, if, as in this case, it looks like introducing arbitrary changes
then I wouldn't do that.

IMNSVHO, ofc.

HTH.

-- 
Regards/Gruss,
    Boris.

https://people.kernel.org/tglx/notes-about-netiquette