[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20070225055522.GB9137@infradead.org>
Date: Sun, 25 Feb 2007 05:55:22 +0000
From: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>
To: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind@...radead.org>
Cc: Christoph Hellwig <hch@...radead.org>,
Linux Kernel Mailing List <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
Frank Haverkamp <haver@...t.ibm.com>,
Thomas Gleixner <tglx@...utronix.de>,
David Woodhouse <dwmw2@...radead.org>,
Josh Boyer <jwboyer@...ux.vnet.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/44 take 2] [UBI] Unsorted Block Images
On Mon, Feb 19, 2007 at 07:44:16PM +0200, Artem Bityutskiy wrote:
> On Mon, 2007-02-19 at 10:50 +0000, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> > I think this is the wrong approach. For one thing the unit terms is
> > rather foregin in Linux
>
> I would rather disagree. Subjective. Unit is a generic word, just like
> subsystem. Unit-tests for example is a widespread word it refer to
> internal units of a big system.
What I meant is that we currently do not use the 'unit' term for code
modules in the linux kernel at all.
> Please, refine what does this exactly mean. I do not see how I should
> have sent it, sorry. OK, I've separated external headers, JFFS2 support,
> build stuff. What next?
You should not separate more but less. Generelly the review-"unit"
should be a functionally separate kenrel module, not microscopic pieces
of it. Unfortunately there are mailinglist limitations why we sometimes
have to split things up a little further, but it's usually really hard
to do useful splits at this boundary.
-
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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists