[lkml]   [2014]   [Apr]   [14]   [last100]   RSS Feed
Views: [wrap][no wrap]   [headers]  [forward] 
Messages in this thread
SubjectRe: [PATCH 00/38] tick cleanups and bugfixes
On Mon, 14 Apr 2014, Viresh Kumar wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
> These are separate cleanups from the timers/hrtimers ones I did. I was waiting
> for the merge window to close in order to send these and by the time it
> happened, I got a long pending list.
> These are mostly cleanups, reorders for better readability or efficiency, and
> few bugfixes.

And that's wrong to begin with.

Bugfixes first and then all other stuff. We dont want dependencies of
bugfixes on cleanups, reordering of code ...

I'm not applying a wholesale patch which creates noise
for no value.

I don't mind if you cleanup stuff while doing other changes, but
definitely not as a stand alone starter of a large patch queue with
bugfixes which depend on that.

Now looking at the thing some more, it contains gems like this:

- printk(KERN_ERR "tick-broadcast: ignoring broadcast for "
- "offline CPU #%d\n", *oncpu);
+ printk(KERN_ERR "tick-broadcast: ignoring broadcast for offline CPU #%d\n",
+ *oncpu);

If you fix that line wrap issue, why do you not change
printk(KERN_ERR) to pr_err() as well? is happy, right?

I'm tired of this, really.

Please send me the next series in the following way:

- send a bug fix series, which does nothing else than fixing bugs.

when that is applied, then

- send a small batch of improvements for a particular issue and not a
mixed bag of random patches.



 \ /
  Last update: 2014-04-15 02:01    [W:0.139 / U:7.804 seconds]
©2003-2018 Jasper Spaans|hosted at Digital Ocean and TransIP|Read the blog|Advertise on this site