On Fri, Feb 09, 2024 at 03:33:24PM +0000, Michael Kelley wrote: > From: Michael Kelley <mhklinux@xxxxxxxxxxx> Sent: Friday, January 12, 2024 8:19 AM > > > > From: Markus Elfring <Markus.Elfring@xxxxxx> 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.
