On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 19:00 +0200, David Hildenbrand wrote:

On 13.06.23 18:19, Edgecombe, Rick P wrote:

quoted

On Tue, 2023-06-13 at 10:44 +0300, Mike Rapoport wrote:

quoted

quoted

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.
_______________________________________________
linux-arm-kernel mailing list
linux-arm-kernel@lists.infradead.org
http://lists.infradead.org/mailman/listinfo/linux-arm-kernel