[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <20151201205152.GA5071@intel.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 22:51:52 +0200
From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@...ux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@...idianresearch.com>
Cc: Uwe Kleine-König
<u.kleine-koenig@...gutronix.de>,
tpmdd-devel@...ts.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org,
Martin Wilck <Martin.Wilck@...fujitsu.com>,
Peter Huewe <peterhuewe@....de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tpm_tis: Clean up the force=1 module parameter
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:43:42AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:35:08AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
>
> > In addition I want this fix as a single patch, not as two-patch set.
> > The first patch might have made sense when the fix was being developed
> > but now it's just really akward change.
>
> No, you are not in tune with the kernel standard when you are
> suggesting merging these patches. Each patch is self contained, encompasses a
> single idea/change, and is justifiable on its own.
>
> Ie SubmittingPatches explains:
>
> The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood
> change that can be verified by reviewers. Each patch should be
> justifiable on its own merits.
>
> If anything the larger patch should be split, because there is alot
> going on there..
Just saying that at least for me it was easier to understand what was
going on once I squashed the patch. Labels were the only really
confusing part, not the patch size...
> Jason
/Jarkko
--
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