On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 03:08:44PM +0000, Simmons, James A. wrote: > >This patch does a lot of stuff all at once and it is hard to review. It > >could easily be broken into patches which are easy to review. > > I have more very large patches. With breaking them up that means you are > going to see hundreds of patches coming from me. > The problem here is that we have two upstreams which have diverged and you're hopefully merging them into one upstream for the future. Breaking things up into patches is a pain and it basically means you have to do a lot of the work a second time. It sucks for you and I totally understand that... :( We regulary review 100+ patch series so that's not a big deal. We still have to review a ball of code with it broken up or not broken up but when it's broken up then I have scripts to strip out much of the mechanical changes. > >Ok in this next section we move functions around and rename them but > >also introduce some bad changes in the new function. > > Thanks for pointing out these bugs. We are still carrying these bugs in the > OpenSFS branch. Once you approve these changes I will sync up lib-socket.c > in the OpenSFS branch. > > P.S > Does the 3rd patch look okay to you? Yeah. That looks fine. regards, dan carpenter _______________________________________________ devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://driverdev.linuxdriverproject.org/mailman/listinfo/driverdev-devel
