linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 3/4] gcov: add gcov profiling infrastructure

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Thu, 4 Jun 2009 01:40:31 -0700
From:	Andrew Morton <akpm@...ux-foundation.org>
To:	Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Cc:	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, andi@...stfloor.org,
	ying.huang@...el.com, W.Li@....COM, michaele@....ibm.com,
	mingo@...e.hu, heicars2@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
	mschwid2@...ux.vnet.ibm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] gcov: add gcov profiling infrastructure

On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:26:39 +0200 Peter Oberparleiter <oberpar@...ux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:

> Ah, right. That answers my question whether further changes should be 
> posted as complete or incremental patches.

yup.  Incrementals are a bit more hassle, but they're hugely more
friendly to people who have already reviewed the code.

And occasionally when I turn a replacement patch into an incremental,
it shows up things which the submitter hadn't intended be included.

> is it ok to post many small 
> patches for -mm for minor changes like this one (simple_ -> strict_) or 
> do you rather prefer these to be collected into somewhat larger patches 
> that fix multiple minor issues?

I think one patch per "issue" would be best.  Although combo patches at
this stage would not be a huge problem.
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/