| 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
| ||
|
Message-Id: <20090604014031.01968da3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> 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/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists