On 01.09.25 13:05, Lorenzo Stoakes wrote:
On Mon, Sep 01, 2025 at 12:54:40PM +0200, Max Kellermann wrote:
On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 12:43 PM David Hildenbrand <david@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Max, I think this series here is valuable, and you can see that from the
engagement from reviewers (this is a *good* thing, I sometimes wish I
would get feedback that would help me improve my submissions).
So if you don't want to follow-up on this series to polish the patch
descriptions etc,, let me now and I (or someone else around here) can
drag it over the finishing line.
Thanks David - I do want to finish this, if there is a constructive
path ahead. I know what you want, but I'm not so sure about the
others.
I can swap all verbose patch messages with the one you suggested.
Would everybody agree that David's suggestion was enough text?
I'm fine with:
"constify shmem related test functions for improved const-correctness."
In the summary line, but, as I said on review, with a little more detail as
to what you're doing in that specific file underneath.
You don't necessarily have to list every function, but just to give a sense of
_why_ you chose those.
For instance:
mm: constify shmem related test functions for improved const-correctness
We select certain test functions which either invoke each other,
functions that are already const-ified, or no further functions.
It is therefore relatively trivial to const-ify them, which
provides a basis for further const-ification further up the call
stack.
Yes, that covers the what/why/why okay. For me something shorter would
be acceptable as well in this case (as explained, due to "test
functions" semantics), but as long as we're not in the AI-slop range of
text, all good with me.
--
Cheers
David / dhildenb
