[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5451E4C1.3000704@zonque.org>
Date: Thu, 30 Oct 2014 08:12:01 +0100
From: Daniel Mack <daniel@...que.org>
To: "Eric W. Biederman" <ebiederm@...ssion.com>,
Greg KH <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
CC: linux-api@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
john.stultz@...aro.org, arnd@...db.de, tj@...nel.org,
marcel@...tmann.org, desrt@...rt.ca, hadess@...ess.net,
dh.herrmann@...il.com, tixxdz@...ndz.org,
simon.mcvittie@...labora.co.uk, alban.crequy@...labora.co.uk,
javier.martinez@...labora.co.uk, teg@...m.no,
Andy Lutomirski <luto@...capital.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/12] Add kdbus implementation
On 10/30/2014 05:04 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> For what it is worth these patches are also poorly split up. Every
> patch I looked at in detail had functions that were being introduced
> that did not have callers.
Yes, we wanted to keep the reply threading cleaner and the individual
patches short. With a patch set that avoids introducing functions
without callers, each patch would have grown substantially. But I know
that's unusual to do it that way.
> That poor split up of the patches makes it difficult to see how
> the functionality that is being introduced is being used.
Ok, I see. For now, I think it's probably easiest to pull the patches
from here, and then look at the resulting files directly:
https://git.kernel.org/cgit/linux/kernel/git/gregkh/char-misc.git/log/?h=kdbus
Other than that, please give us some time to respond to your longer
reply. Thanks for taking the time to write this up!
Daniel
--
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