lkml.org 
[lkml]   [2008]   [May]   [1]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
 
Messages in this thread
/
Date
From
SubjectRe: [PATCH, RFC] ext3: move headers out of include/linux


On Thu, 1 May 2008, Theodore Ts'o wrote:
>
> fs/ext3/acl.c | 4 +-
> fs/ext3/balloc.c | 5 +-
> fs/ext3/bitmap.c | 2 +-
> fs/ext3/dir.c | 3 +-
> fs/ext3/ext3.h | 897 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
> fs/ext3/ext3_i.h | 147 ++++++++
> fs/ext3/ext3_jbd.c | 7 +-
> fs/ext3/ext3_jbd.h | 225 +++++++++++
> fs/ext3/ext3_sb.h | 86 +++++
> fs/ext3/file.c | 5 +-
> fs/ext3/fsync.c | 5 +-
> fs/ext3/hash.c | 3 +-
> fs/ext3/ialloc.c | 5 +-
> fs/ext3/inode.c | 4 +-
> fs/ext3/ioctl.c | 5 +-
> fs/ext3/namei.c | 5 +-
> fs/ext3/resize.c | 6 +-
> fs/ext3/super.c | 5 +-
> fs/ext3/symlink.c | 3 +-
> fs/ext3/xattr.c | 4 +-
> fs/ext3/xattr_security.c | 4 +-
> fs/ext3/xattr_trusted.c | 4 +-
> fs/ext3/xattr_user.c | 5 +-
> include/linux/ext3_fs.h | 896 -------------------------------------------
> include/linux/ext3_fs_i.h | 147 --------
> include/linux/ext3_fs_sb.h | 86 -----
> include/linux/ext3_jbd.h | 226 -----------

I'd suggest not sending out patches like this.

If the patch is largely a rename one, and sent out for review, just use
"git diff -M -p --stat --summary", because it's going to be a *lot* more
reviewable that way.

Yeah, it means that people need git to apply it, but by now we can
probably take that for granted - and more importantly, even if they don't
have git installed: when you send out of RFC, aren't you looking for
commentary more than people to apply and test it?

And then the patch saying that it's a rename (with perhaps changes to the
guard #ifdef thing) would be a lot more clear. Nobody is going to read a
patch that is 2800 lines of mostly create/delete with presumably almost no
actual changes?

Linus


\
 
 \ /
  Last update: 2008-05-01 20:43    [W:0.097 / U:0.124 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site