Messages in this thread | | | Date | Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:03:12 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 72/79] sysdev: Pass the attribute to the low level sysdev show/store function |
| |
On Wed, Jul 23, 2008 at 11:03:10AM +0200, Ingo Molnar wrote: > ok, lemme do a bit of merge window flaming here, in defense of Andrew. > > This commit history: > > commit 4a0b2b4dbe1335b8b9886ba3dc85a145d5d938ed > Author: Andi Kleen <andi@firstfloor.org> > AuthorDate: Tue Jul 1 18:48:41 2008 +0200 > Commit: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@suse.de> > CommitDate: Mon Jul 21 21:55:02 2008 -0700 > > sysdev: Pass the attribute to the low level sysdev show/store function > > [...] > > I converted all users in tree to the new show/store prototype. It's > a single huge patch to avoid unbisectable sections. > > Runtime tested: x86-32, x86-64 > Compiled only: ia64, powerpc > Not compile tested/only grep converted: sh, arm, avr32 > > covers a relatively trivial patch that we'd normally not notice, but it > is ... a ... misrepresentation of the true situation on several levels: > > 1) The changelog. The updated patch Andi sent did not declare the other > incremental changes (to sched.c) it also included freshly.
Andi's original patch that he sent me _did_ declare that he had updated the patch, I didn't change the changelog as it didn't make sense to do so.
> 2) The date. This patch did not originate on Jul 1 - if Andi sent a > material update yesterday it should say Jul 21, not Jul 1.
Again, my fault, I kept the original email headers and just updated the patch portion. It's easier for me to do that using quilt, hence the lack of the date change.
> 3) The justification. Huge atomic patches are fine and can indeed be > much simpler than a gradual switchover, _iff_ they are done > perfectly. If there's any doubt then they are by far not the only > option to pursue - we've done finegrained API changeovers for years.
This kind of API change is atomic, sorry. It was tiny enough that it didn't justify a big rework (like I did on the recent device_create() stuff for example) to get it modified.
> ... which all we still wouldnt worry much about (the whole change is > relatively trivial), if it had been done more carefully without wrecking > Andrew's workflow in the middle of the merge window.
I understand, and I apologize.
thanks,
greg k-h
| |