Messages in this thread | | | From | Alexander Kapshuk <> | Date | Mon, 22 Aug 2016 19:59:35 +0300 | Subject | Re: Fwd: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation |
| |
On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 1:00 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: > On Mon, Aug 22, 2016 at 07:14:10AM +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: >> ---------- Forwarded message ---------- >> From: Alexander Kapshuk <alexander.kapshuk@gmail.com> >> Date: Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 5:07 PM >> Subject: Re: Fwd: [PATCH 01/32] ver_linux: complete awk implementation >> To: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> >> >> >> On Sun, Aug 21, 2016 at 11:19 AM, Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org> wrote: >> > >> > On Fri, Aug 19, 2016 at 09:12:28PM +0300, Alexander Kapshuk wrote: >> > > Hello Greg, >> > > >> > > This is a follow-up on the series of 'ver_linux' patches I submitted at the end >> > > of June, proposing a complete rewrite of the script in awk. >> > > >> > > So far, I have had feedback from one person, and I just wanted to get some >> > > feedback from yourself too. >> > > >> > > I do appreciate the fact that you have other more pressing matters to attend to >> > > at the moment, so there is no rush. >> > > >> > > I would appreciate hearing from you about my patches at your convenience. >> > >> > Last I saw, your patch series broke the build in the beginning and then >> > fixed it up at the end, right? >> > >> > All patches have to never break the build, or functionality, at every >> > step of the way. >> > >> > Sorry, it's a pain, but that's how the Linux kernel development model >> > works. >> > >> > thanks, >> > >> > greg k-h >> >> >> Thanks for your feedback and for clarifying how the Linux kernel >> development model works. >> >> Which of the two avenues presented below would you recommend taking? >> >> (1). Submit a complete rewrite in awk as a single patch, to satisfy >> the kernel development model requirements; >> (2). Submit individual patches with repeating pieces of code >> implemented as shell functions; >> >> While my personal preference lies with option (1), I am willing to go >> ahead with option (2), should the community prefer the shell >> implementation over the awk one. > > I think 1 might be good, but do it in 3 patches: > - add new file scripts/ver_linux.awk > - delete scripts/ver_linux > - rename scripts/ver_linux.awk to scripts/ver_linux > > the first one people can review, the second no one cares about, and the > third you can generate with the '-M' option to git format-patch so it > shows up as nothing at all. > > Yes, for one patch there will not be the script, but I think we can live > with that :) > > Sound better? > > thanks, > > greg k-h
Heaps better. Thanks.
| |