[lkml]   [2014]   [Oct]   [30]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/12] Add kdbus implementation
On 10/30/2014 05:04 AM, Eric W. Biederman wrote:
> For what it is worth these patches are also poorly split up. Every
> patch I looked at in detail had functions that were being introduced
> that did not have callers.

Yes, we wanted to keep the reply threading cleaner and the individual
patches short. With a patch set that avoids introducing functions
without callers, each patch would have grown substantially. But I know
that's unusual to do it that way.

> That poor split up of the patches makes it difficult to see how
> the functionality that is being introduced is being used.

Ok, I see. For now, I think it's probably easiest to pull the patches
from here, and then look at the resulting files directly:

Other than that, please give us some time to respond to your longer
reply. Thanks for taking the time to write this up!


 \ /
  Last update: 2014-10-30 08:21    [W:0.315 / U:0.100 seconds]
©2003-2020 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site