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;
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <20210529034138.83384-1-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>
 <20210529034138.83384-2-wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com> <20210601143125.GB30436@shell.armlinux.org.uk>
 <CAMj1kXF9crOKFaGfzcj9T4n58XAr7n85YZO0x7J1DcRG2JrfcQ@mail.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAMj1kXF9crOKFaGfzcj9T4n58XAr7n85YZO0x7J1DcRG2JrfcQ@mail.gmail.com>
From:   Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@kernel.org>
Date:   Fri, 2 Jun 2023 11:51:46 +0200
Message-ID: <CAMj1kXHXB4a6ug0kUSJpNrtpgQ_p1w52P=5JZthZGiuPCCqM0w@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()
To:     "Russell King (Oracle)" <linux@armlinux.org.uk>
Cc:     Kefeng Wang <wangkefeng.wang@huawei.com>,
        linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org,
        Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
        Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>,
        Jungseung Lee <js07.lee@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8"
Precedence: bulk

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.

Also, apologies for digging up this 2 year old thread :-) I did so
unintentionally.

(Somehow, it turned up as new/unread in my LAKML folder)