On Mon, 21 Oct 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > On Mon, Oct 21, 2024 at 12:32 PM Ilpo Järvinen > <ilpo.jarvinen@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Mon, 21 Oct 2024, Andy Shevchenko wrote: > > ... > > > IMO, this change is doing too many things at once and it's hard to justify > > why those changes must be kept in the same patch. If the guard() change > > is done first and only then the logic reversions, both patches would > > probably be near trivial to review for correctness. > > Are you insisting on this? > Because that's how I have done similar changes in the past all over > the kernel, and IIRC you are the first one asking for this :-) Well, I know I could go through the patch as is and likely find out it's correct. But as is, it requires clearly more effort that it would if those two things would be separated. The contexts would be much smaller and focused if you split this into two and since you know the end result (the current patch), the second patch is just the diff of the first to it. I'm not saying it's always required but TBH, this patch definitely would get simpler to read if you split it into two. So to answer your question, it's more of a judgement call than insisting it always. -- i.
