[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <5678F88B.7060201@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:15:23 +0100
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@...rs.sourceforge.net>
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@...uxfoundation.org>
Cc: lustre-devel@...ts.lustre.org, devel@...verdev.osuosl.org,
Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@...el.com>,
Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@...el.com>,
LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
kernel-janitors@...r.kernel.org,
Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@...6.fr>,
Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@...cle.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] staging: lustre: Less checks in
mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection
>> 6. Apply a recommendation from the script "checkpatch.pl".
>
> That's 6 different things, shouldn't this be 6 different patches?
>
> please redo.
Dan Carpenter requested to squash the previous update steps 5 and 6
into a single patch for better source code review.
Now I see further software development challenges to increase
the patch granularity even more as you suggest.
Which route would Lustre developers like to follow?
Regards,
Markus
--
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