Re: [PATCH v2 2/2] kallsyms: add kallsyms_show_value defination in all cases

[Luis Chamberlain]

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