[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <1289646634.2218.25.camel@localhost>
Date: Sat, 13 Nov 2010 13:10:34 +0200
From: Artem Bityutskiy <dedekind1@...il.com>
To: Tejun Heo <tj@...nel.org>
Cc: axboe@...nel.dk, hch@...radead.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
petero2@...ia.com, schwidefsky@...ibm.com,
heiko.carstens@...ibm.com, jack@...e.cz, akpm@...ux-foundation.org,
adilger.kernel@...ger.ca, tytso@....edu, mfasheh@...e.com,
joel.becker@...cle.com, aelder@....com, dm-devel@...hat.com,
drbd-dev@...ts.linbit.com, neilb@...e.de, leochen@...adcom.com,
sbranden@...adcom.com, chris.mason@...cle.com, swhiteho@...hat.com,
shaggy@...ux.vnet.ibm.com, joern@...fs.org,
konishi.ryusuke@....ntt.co.jp, reiserfs-devel@...r.kernel.org,
viro@...iv.linux.org.uk, linux-mtd@...ts.infradead.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/5] mtd: fix bdev exclusive open bugs in
block2mtd::add_device()
On Sat, 2010-11-13 at 11:42 +0100, Tejun Heo wrote:
> Hmmm... not really. The patch is small enough and splitting it won't
> really buy as any better bisectability. Splitting patches into
> logical changes is a good thing but it's no religious dogma. Let's
> apply it to the point it actually helps.
Well, it is more about if your second fix is buggy, we could revert it
without reverting the first fix. But anyway, this is not a big deal, so
let's forget about this indeed.
--
Best Regards,
Artem Bityutskiy (Артём Битюцкий)
--
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