Re: [PATCH 7/8] all: replace find_next{,_zero}_bit with find_first{,_zero}_bit where appropriate

From: Andrew Morton <akpm@linux-foundation.org>
To: Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com>
Cc: Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com>,
	Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
	Linux-Arch <linux-arch@vger.kernel.org>,
	Benjamin Herrenschmidt <benh@kernel.crashing.org>,
	Catalin Marinas <catalin.marinas@arm.com>,
	Will Deacon <will@kernel.org>,
	Yoshinori Sato <ysato@users.osdn.me>,
	Brian Cain <bcain@codeaurora.org>,
	Geert Uytterhoeven <geert@linux-m68k.org>,
	Thomas Bogendoerfer <tsbogend@alpha.franken.de>,
	Jonas Bonn <jonas@southpole.se>,
	Stefan Kristiansson <stefan.kristiansson@saunalahti.fi>,
	"James E.J. Bottomley" <James.Bottomley@hansenpartnership.com>,
	Palmer Dabbelt <palmer@dabbelt.com>,
	Heiko Carstens <hca@linux.ibm.com>, Rich Felker <dalias@libc.org>,
	David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>,
	Jaegeuk Kim <jaegeuk@kernel.org>, Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>,
	Andy Shevchenko <andriy.shevchenko@linux.intel.com>,
	Rasmus Villemoes <linux@rasmusvillemoes.dk>,
	Alexander Lobakin <alobakin@pm.me>,
	Samuel Mendoza-Jonas <sam@mendozajonas.com>,
	Jakub Kicinski <kuba@kernel.org>,
	Daniel Bristot de Oliveira <bristot@redhat.com>,
	Alexey Klimov <aklimov@redhat.com>,
	Ingo Molnar <mingo@redhat.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 7/8] all: replace find_next{,_zero}_bit with find_first{,_zero}_bit where appropriate
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 18:07:06 -0700	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210614180706.1e8564854bfed648dd4c039b@linux-foundation.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAHp75VeXJcPai=w3Fbx11TPf_CZTusD6U_E2R+XSaCcebV7uBw@mail.gmail.com>

On Sun, 13 Jun 2021 12:41:38 +0300 Andy Shevchenko <andy.shevchenko@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, June 13, 2021, Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> > On Sun, Jun 13, 2021 at 12:47:31AM +0300, Andy Shevchenko wrote:
> > > On Sat, Jun 12, 2021 at 3:39 PM Yury Norov <yury.norov@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > find_first{,_zero}_bit is a more effective analogue of 'next' version
> > if
> > > > start == 0. This patch replaces 'next' with 'first' where things look
> > > > trivial.
> > >
> > > Depending on the maintainers (but I think there will be at least few
> > > in this case) they would like to have this be split on a per-driver
> > > basis.
> > > I counted 17 patches. I would split.
> > >
> > > Since many of them are independent you may send without Cc'ing all
> > > non-relevant people in each case.
> >
> > submitting-patches.rst says:
> >
> >         On the other hand, if you make a single change to numerous files,
> >         group those changes into a single patch.  Thus a single logical
> > change
> >         is contained within a single patch.
> >
> > Also refer 96d4f267e40f9 ("Remove 'type' argument from access_ok()
> > functioin.")
> 
> 
> Mixing arch and non arch is not good, fs stuff can be separated as well,
> so, at least 4 patches. Otherwise it might be not good for bissection /
> reverting.

Actually I don't have a problem taking/merging splatterpatches like
this one, as long as all relevant maintainers are cc'ed throughout. 

If they review/test/ack then great.  If they don't then their stuff
breaks during -rc and they get to fix it (this almost never happens
anyway).

If the splatterpatch is prepared as a series of patches then that's OK
as well.  I'll queue them all up behind linux-next so I can see when
maintainers have merged them and drop the individual patches as/when
needed.

On balance...  I guess individual patches is a bit better because the
more diligent maintainers will sometimes merge them and get them better
tested.  But in practice, 95% of maintainers will eyeball it, say "yeah
fine" and let Andrew handle it.