Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org designates 2620:137:e000::1:20 as permitted sender) client-ip=2620:137:e000::1:20;
Date:   Wed, 31 May 2023 10:26:42 -0700
From:   Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@kernel.org>
To:     Maninder Singh <maninder1.s@samsung.com>
Cc:     ast@kernel.org, daniel@iogearbox.net, john.fastabend@gmail.com,
        andrii@kernel.org, martin.lau@linux.dev, song@kernel.org,
        yhs@fb.com, kpsingh@kernel.org, sdf@google.com, haoluo@google.com,
        jolsa@kernel.org, thunder.leizhen@huawei.com, boqun.feng@gmail.com,
        vincenzopalazzodev@gmail.com, ojeda@kernel.org, jgross@suse.com,
        brauner@kernel.org, michael.christie@oracle.com,
        samitolvanen@google.com, glider@google.com, peterz@infradead.org,
        keescook@chromium.org, stephen.s.brennan@oracle.com,
        alan.maguire@oracle.com, pmladek@suse.com,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, bpf@vger.kernel.org,
        Onkarnath <onkarnath.1@samsung.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] kallsyms: add kallsyms_show_value defination in
 all cases
Message-ID: <ZHeDUgHZcA1eiEaA@bombadil.infradead.org>
References: <20230531084745.877337-1-maninder1.s@samsung.com>
 <CGME20230531084808epcas5p4a782bf6bb5655f2d320c246057e7bb63@epcas5p4.samsung.com>
 <20230531084745.877337-2-maninder1.s@samsung.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <20230531084745.877337-2-maninder1.s@samsung.com>
Sender: Luis Chamberlain <mcgrof@infradead.org>
Precedence: bulk

On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 02:17:45PM +0530, Maninder Singh wrote:
>  include/linux/kallsyms.h | 10 +++-----
>  kernel/Makefile          |  2 +-
>  kernel/kallsyms.c        | 35 ---------------------------
>  kernel/knosyms.c         | 52 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

You missed my point of the value of doing a move to a new file and
making it easier for folks to review. For instance I am giving up on
reviewing this patch alone because you made all these changes to a new
file *and* also included a functional change in it. Think about it from
a reviewer perspective, you want to make their life easier, not harder.

So, to do that you first move all the stuff into a new file with 0
functional changes. Then, you make a functional change as a separate
commit. So this becomes 3 commits then.

Sit back and then think after you have done this: does it make sense
then afterwards to re-arrange the order of the patches so to make it
easier for folks to review this patchset? If so what order should
I put those changes in? I don't know the answer to this question but
just think about it once you have done that.

For instance, confirming there was 0 functional changes to your first
patch actually took me about 3 minutes or so, how can you reduce the
time to review to a few seconds for a non-functional change? Work on
your commit logs and your changes in light of this so to make patch
review easier.

  Luis