On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:43:42AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:35:08AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote: > > > In addition I want this fix as a single patch, not as two-patch set. > > The first patch might have made sense when the fix was being developed > > but now it's just really akward change. > > No, you are not in tune with the kernel standard when you are > suggesting merging these patches. Each patch is self contained, encompasses a > single idea/change, and is justifiable on its own. > > Ie SubmittingPatches explains: > > The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood > change that can be verified by reviewers. Each patch should be > justifiable on its own merits. > > If anything the larger patch should be split, because there is alot > going on there..
Just saying that at least for me it was easier to understand what was going on once I squashed the patch. Labels were the only really confusing part, not the patch size... > Jason /Jarkko -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to [email protected] More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
