On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 19:00 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote: > On 13.06.23 18:19, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote: > > On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 10:44 +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote: > > > > Previous patches have done the first step, so next move the > > > > callers > > > > that > > > > don't have a VMA to pte_mkwrite_novma(). Also do the same for > > > > > > I hear x86 maintainers asking to drop "previous patches" ;-) > > > > > > Maybe > > > This is the second step of the conversion that moves the callers > > > ... > > > > Really? I've not heard that. Just a strong aversion to "this > > patch". > > I've got feedback to say "previous patches" and not "the last > > patch" so > > it doesn't get stale. I guess it could be "previous changes". > > Talking about patches make sense when discussing literal patches sent > to > the mailing list. In the git log, it's commit, and "future commits" > or > "follow-up work". > > Yes, we use "patches" all of the time in commit logs, especially when > we > include the cover letter in the commit message (as done frequently > in > the -mm tree). I think I'll switch over to talking about "changes". If you talk about commits it doesn't make as much sense when they are still just patches. Thanks.