[lkml]   [2006]   [Nov]   [28]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 1/2 -mm] fault-injection: safer defaults, trivial optimization, cleanup
On Tue, 28 Nov 2006 14:50:45 -0800
Don Mullis <> wrote:

> On Tue, 2006-11-28 at 13:37 -0800, Andrew Morton wrote:
> > We'd prefer one-patch-per-concept, please. This all sounds like about
> > six patches.
> Understood.
> > We _could_ merge this patch as-is, but it means that when this stuff
> > finally hits mainline it would go in as a nice sequence of logical patches,
> > followed by a random thing which is splattered all over all the preceding
> > patches.
> Does this argue for a respin of the original patches, folding in
> content from this one, rather than splitting it into an additional six to
> be appended to the series?

If the fixes are one-patch-per-concept, and if the original patch series is
one-patch-per-concept (it is) then I can usually insert the fixups in the
right place, later fold each into its appropriate base patch and everything
lands in git squeaky-clean.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to
More majordomo info at
Please read the FAQ at

 \ /
  Last update: 2006-11-29 01:09    [W:0.039 / U:2.232 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site