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. You can re-use this kind of text for each adjusting sensibly as you go and noting the dependency as you mentioned I think at 6/12? Just something that clearly expresses what's going on in plain English. Cheers, Lorenzo
