On Thu, May 22, 2025 at 3:02 AM Zizhi Wo <wozizhi@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Hello! > > There are currently two possible approaches to this patch. > The first is to directly change the declaration, which would be > straightforward and involve minimal modifications. > > However, per Al Viro's suggestion — that "mnt for vfsmount, m for mount" > is an informal convention. This is in line with what the current > patch does, although I understand Jan Kara might feel that the scope of > the changes is a bit large. > > I would appreciate any suggestions or guidance on how to proceed. So > friendly ping... Hi Zizhi, I guess you are not familiar with kernel lingo so I will translate: "...so I'd say go for it if there had been any change in the function in question. Same as with coding style, really..." It means that your change is correct, but maintainers are not interested in taking "style only" changes because it creates undesired git history noise called "churn". Should anyone be going to make logic changes in mnt_get_write_access() in the future, the style change can be applied along in the same patch. One observation I have is - If this was the only case that deviates from the standard the change might have been justified.
