Re: [PATCH v9 02/42] mm: Move pte/pmd_mkwrite() callers with no VMA to _novma()

["Edgecombe, Rick P" <rick.p.edgecombe@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 19:00 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:
> On 13.06.23 18:19, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:
> > On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 10:44 +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:
> > > > Previous patches have done the first step, so next move the
> > > > callers
> > > > that
> > > > don't have a VMA to pte_mkwrite_novma(). Also do the same for
> > > 
> > > I hear x86 maintainers asking to drop "previous patches" ;-)
> > > 
> > > Maybe
> > > This is the second step of the conversion that moves the callers
> > > ...
> > 
> > Really? I've not heard that. Just a strong aversion to "this
> > patch".
> > I've got feedback to say "previous patches" and not "the last
> > patch" so
> > it doesn't get stale. I guess it could be "previous changes".
> 
> Talking about patches make sense when discussing literal patches sent
> to 
> the mailing list. In the git log, it's commit, and "future commits"
> or 
> "follow-up work".
> 
> Yes, we use "patches" all of the time in commit logs, especially when
> we 
>   include the cover letter in the commit message (as done frequently
> in 
> the -mm tree).

I think I'll switch over to talking about "changes". If you talk about
commits it doesn't make as much sense when they are still just patches.
Thanks.