[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CANiq72kgNJGqe+3yNHj96UPcA8i7ozbQGf5FWBQcOytZqZ6ZMw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 17 Mar 2025 16:45:56 +0100
From: Miguel Ojeda <miguel.ojeda.sandonis@...il.com>
To: Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me>
Cc: Antonio Hickey <contact@...oniohickey.com>, a.hindborg@...nel.org, alex.gaynor@...il.com,
aliceryhl@...gle.com, bjorn3_gh@...tonmail.com, boqun.feng@...il.com,
dakr@...nel.org, gary@...yguo.net, justinstitt@...gle.com,
linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, llvm@...ts.linux.dev, morbo@...gle.com,
nathan@...nel.org, nick.desaulniers+lkml@...il.com, ojeda@...nel.org,
rust-for-linux@...r.kernel.org, tmgross@...ch.edu
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] rust: uaccess: mark UserSliceWriter method inline
On Mon, Mar 17, 2025 at 4:07 PM Benno Lossin <benno.lossin@...ton.me> wrote:
>
> I don't 100% know what to do here, maybe Miguel can help. Personally,
> I'd think that another v1 is confusing, but I have seen people in the
> past add patches to their already existing series (while incrementing
> the version number). I think it's a good idea to merge the patches into
> a single one that handles the entire file though.
I would say that what is most important is to mention what was done,
i.e. linking to the previous thread(s) and saying it was merged or not
so that it is clear what is being done.
If this is just `UserSliceWriter` and `UserSliceReader`, then yeah, a
single patch seems good enough. It is not a fix, which could require
different `Fixes:` tags or things like that.
Thanks!
Cheers,
Miguel
Powered by blists - more mailing lists