[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <CAKYAXd9=NwCpFJ7NczFBF1diFV3mLpL2Sz7UQP-Pg78zaFtBnA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 17 Feb 2021 14:39:17 +0900
From: Namjae Jeon <linkinjeon@...nel.org>
To: Hyeongseok Kim <hyeongseok@...il.com>
Cc: Chaitanya Kulkarni <Chaitanya.Kulkarni@....com>,
"namjae.jeon@...sung.com" <namjae.jeon@...sung.com>,
"sj1557.seo@...sung.com" <sj1557.seo@...sung.com>,
"linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-fsdevel@...r.kernel.org>,
"linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 1/2] exfat: add initial ioctl function
2021-02-17 9:33 GMT+09:00, Hyeongseok Kim <hyeongseok@...il.com>:
> On 2/17/21 9:17 AM, Chaitanya Kulkarni wrote:
>> On 2/16/21 16:13, Hyeongseok Kim wrote:
>>> Sorry, I don't understand exactly.
>>> You're saying that these 2 patch should be merged to a single patch?
>>> Would it be better?
>> I think so unless there is a specific reason for this to keep it
>> isolated.
>>
> The reason was just that I think it seems better to seperate ioctl
> initializing and adding specific ioctl functionality.
> Anyway, I got it.
>
> Namjae,
Hi Hyeongseok,
> Do you have any other opinion about this?
I also think this patch should be combined with the 2/2 patch.
> If you agree, I'll merge these as one.
Yep, Agreed. Please do that:)
Thanks!
>
>
Powered by blists - more mailing lists