Re: [PATCH v4 3/7] rust: bitfield: fully qualify types in macro

[Yury Norov]

On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 10:44:16PM +0900, Alexandre Courbot wrote:
> On Wed May 27, 2026 at 10:24 PM JST, Miguel Ojeda wrote:
> > On Wed, May 27, 2026 at 2:52 PM Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> >>
> >> These types were not fully qualified, which could cause issues if the
> >> local module shadows them.
> >>
> >> Signed-off-by: Alexandre Courbot <acourbot@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >
> > Should we fixup this into #1? (on apply maybe?)
> >
> > Similarly, for #2, I guess it may separate to give credit to Gary (?),
> > but typically we don't create extra commits if it is still not landed.
> >
> > Or what am I missing? Perhaps they are intended to show the changelog (?).
> 
> The intent was to make #1 a pure code move - except that, upon actual
> inspection, it does not move the code but only extracts it, which weakens
> that argument.
> 
> So yes, if you prefer it that way I agree that squashing #2 and #3 into
> #1 (with a description of the changes in the commit log) should be fine.

Both ways are OK for me. If you decide to merge the patches, can you
explicitly list everything that is not a plain move in the change log?

Acked-by: Yury Norov <yury.norov@xxxxxxxxx>