Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of linux-kernel+bounces-88176-linux.lists.archive=gmail.com@vger.kernel.org designates 147.75.199.223 as permitted sender) client-ip=147.75.199.223;
Date: Fri, 1 Mar 2024 09:25:57 +0000
From: Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>
To: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@outlook.com>
Cc: Wei Liu <wei.liu@kernel.org>, LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de>,
	"linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org" <linux-hyperv@vger.kernel.org>,
	Dexuan Cui <decui@microsoft.com>,
	Haiyang Zhang <haiyangz@microsoft.com>,
	Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@linaro.org>,
	"kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org" <kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] Drivers: hv: vmbus: Remove duplication and cleanup
 code in create_gpadl_header()
Message-ID: <ZeGfJZv-dWMIZJsx@liuwe-devbox-debian-v2>
References: <20240111165451.269418-1-mhklinux@outlook.com>
 <de6c23b2-aa27-494a-a0ec-fe14a4289b38@web.de>
 <SN6PR02MB4157A7AC71EF769E5B88202CD46F2@SN6PR02MB4157.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
 <SN6PR02MB4157D586E6523E5747690FB0D44B2@SN6PR02MB4157.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>
Precedence: bulk
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
In-Reply-To: <SN6PR02MB4157D586E6523E5747690FB0D44B2@SN6PR02MB4157.namprd02.prod.outlook.com>

On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 03:33:24PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote:
> From: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@outlook.com> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 8:19 AM
> > 
> > From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@web.de> Sent: Friday, January 12,
> > 2024 12:06 AM
> > >
> > > …
> > > > Eliminate the duplication by making minor tweaks to the logic and
> > > > associated comments. While here, simplify the handling of memory
> > > > allocation errors, and use umin() instead of open coding it.
> > > …
> > >
> > > I got the impression that the adjustment for the mentioned macro
> > > should be performed in a separate update step of the presented patch series.
> > > https://elixir.bootlin.com/linux/v6.7/source/include/linux/minmax.h#L95
> > >
> > > See also:
> > > https://git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git/tree/Docu
> > > mentation/process/submitting-patches.rst?h=v6.7#n81
> > >
> > 
> > To me, this is a judgment call.  Breaking out the umin() change into
> > a separate patch is OK, but for consistency then I should probably
> > break out the change to memory allocation errors in the same
> > way.   Then we would have three patches, plus the patch to
> > separately handle the indentation so the changes are reviewable.
> > To me, that's overkill for updates to a single function that have
> > no functionality change.  The intent of the patch is to cleanup
> > and simplify a single 13-year old function, and it's OK to do
> > that in a single patch (plus the indentation patch).
> > 
> > Wei Liu is the maintainer for the Hyper-V code.  Wei -- any
> > objections to keeping a single patch (plus the indentation patch)?
> > But I'll break it out if that's your preference.
> > 
> 
> Wei Liu -- any input on this?  This is just a cleanup/simplification
> patch, so it's not urgent.

These patches are fine. I'll take them via the hyperv-fixes tree.

Thanks,
Wei.