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. Michael
