Re: [PATCH 1/2] ARM: mm: Refactor __do_page_fault()

[Kefeng Wang]

On 2023/6/2 17:51, Ard Biesheuvel wrote:
> On Fri, 2 Jun 2023 at 11:49, Ard Biesheuvel <ardb@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > On Tue, 1 Jun 2021 at 16:32, Russell King (Oracle)
> > <linux@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> 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@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > >
> > > 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.

Yes, already split it and the new version is merged,
> Also, apologies for digging up this 2 year old thread :-) I did so
> unintentionally.

Never mind, thank for all kind of reviews :)
> (Somehow, it turned up as new/unread in my LAKML folder)