>>> This last patch fixes a bug introduced by the 5th one. Why not squash it >>> instead of purposely introducing a bug then its fix ? Or maybe it was >>> just overlooked when you sent the PR ? >> >> I didn't want to rebase it, so I just put the fix at the end. Not that >> important imho, only issue there was an ltp case getting a wrong error >> value. Hence didn't deem it important enough to warrant a rebase. > > OK. I tend to prefer making sure that a bisect session can never end up > in the middle of a patch set for a reason other than a yet-undiscovered > bug, that's why I was asking. If the bug in question is a complete malfunction, or a crash for example, then I would certainly have squashed and rebased. But since this one is really minor - checking for the return value in an error condition, I didn't see it as important enough to do that. It's not something you'd run into at runtime, except if you were running LTP... -- Jens Axboe
