[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <19198242da4d01804dc20cb41e870b05041bede2.camel@perches.com>
Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2020 21:37:34 -0800
From: Joe Perches <joe@...ches.com>
To: Leon Romanovsky <leon@...nel.org>
Cc: Jakub Kicinski <kuba@...nel.org>,
Vasyl Gomonovych <gomonovych@...il.com>, tariqt@...dia.com,
"David S. Miller" <davem@...emloft.net>, netdev@...r.kernel.org,
linux-rdma@...r.kernel.org, linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2] net/mlx4: Use true,false for bool variable
On Tue, 2020-12-15 at 07:18 +0200, Leon Romanovsky wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 14, 2020 at 11:15:01AM -0800, Joe Perches wrote:
> > I prefer revisions to single patches (as opposed to large patch series)
> > in the same thread.
>
> It depends which side you are in that game. From the reviewer point of
> view, such submission breaks flow very badly. It unfolds the already
> reviewed thread, messes with the order and many more little annoying
> things.
This is where I disagree with you. I am a reviewer here.
Not having context to be able to inspect vN -> vN+1 is made
more difficult not having the original patch available and
having to search history for it.
Almost no one adds URL links to older submissions below the ---.
Were that a standard mechanism below the --- line, then it would
be OK.
Powered by blists - more mailing lists