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
| ||
|
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