Re: [PATCH v2 01/12] mm/shmem: add `const` to lots of pointer parameters

[David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com>]

On 01.09.25 12:00, Max Kellermann wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 1, 2025 at 11:53 AM David Hildenbrand <david@redhat.com> wrote:
>> I'm sorry, I have no time to argue about the basics of writing a patch
>> description. I even proposed a simple example of what we (multiple
>> reviewers) would expect as a bare minimum.
> 
> But Lorenzo Stoakes and Mike Rappoport wanted much more than that.

Sure, if it's not a simple "test" function as the one I commented on, it 
might make sense to explain more why it is okay.

> 
>> If you feel like you need other rules than everybody else here
> 
> What other rules? I get confused by different requirements by different people.
> 
> Quite contrary - I want the same rules as everybody else. For example,
> the same rules as Matthew Wilcox who already submitted similar patches
> (with similar commit messages) that were merged without pushing him
> around.

In my example I literally took the beginning of Willy's patch 
description and modified it, extending it by the const-correctnes.

And before I get seriously annoyed and behave differently than I usually 
would here on this list, like ever,

this is my suggestion for that one patch:

"Constify shmem related test functions for improved const-correctness."

and this is the beginning of Willy's patch

"Constify the flag tests ..."

And now I am wondering why on earth I am wasting my time here on 
something that trivial.

-- 
Cheers

David / dhildenb