linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH 00/03] gpio: Renesas R-Car GPIO driver update

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] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CANqRtoRNj6V51V=URATdgBw4ugq2TUoTs3_A8j16nG9G1ZvQ1Q@mail.gmail.com>
Date:	Wed, 27 Mar 2013 23:44:24 +0900
From:	Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com>
To:	Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Cc:	Laurent Pinchart <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com>,
	linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org, linux-sh@...r.kernel.org,
	grant.likely@...retlab.ca, horms@...ge.net.au
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/03] gpio: Renesas R-Car GPIO driver update

On Wed, Mar 27, 2013 at 9:34 PM, Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 4:36 AM, Magnus Damm <magnus.damm@...il.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, Mar 14, 2013 at 10:13 PM, Laurent Pinchart
>> <laurent.pinchart@...asonboard.com> wrote:
>
>>> When submitting new drivers I usually try not to make the development history
>>> visible to mainline. It brings little additional value (beside possibly making
>>> backporting a bit easier, but in the devm_* case that shouldn't be a problem,
>>> unless Simon thinks otherwise) but adds review complexity, as reviewers need
>>> to validate the intermediate versions as well. More patches also mean more
>>> potential bisection breakages.
>>
>> Huh, it seems that my point of view is the total opposite. I see that
>> using incremental patches to show new development would make review
>> _easier_. Perhaps that's not the case for most people.
>
> As subsystem maintainer what I don't want to see is a patch that
> at one point breaks something in some configuration and then later
> fixes it. Then I strongly prefer squashing. (Greg also mentions this
> in one of his seminars.)

Sure, I totally agree. I strongly dislike when people introduce
breakage and then fix it later in the same series. It's pretty obvious
to me, each incremental step needs to work by itself - if it doesn't
then it should be reworked before it gets merged. I personally prefer
to separate features from fixes. Fixes are always folded into the
original patch.

> What really makes me mad is the the above pattern + claim that
> it must be done in that way to preserve authorship. Like legaleaze
> or credit is more important that functionality.
>
> If all patches are bisectable and perfectly fine then whether you
> take 8 stops when driving to Rome or just drive there in one
> big stretch is more a technical, secondary thing. Do whatever you
> like as long as all commits build and boot.

I suppose I prefer to stop for coffee in every village then. =)

/ magnus
--
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/