Eric W. Biederman wrote: > Tejun Heo <tj@xxxxxxxxxx> writes: > >> Eric W. Biederman wrote: >>> From: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxx> >>> >>> Use the existing sysfs_rename to make sysfs_rename_link an atomic >>> operation that does less work. While I am at add additional sanity >>> checking to ensure it is a symlink I am renaming. >>> >>> Acked-by: Kay Sievers <kay.sievers@xxxxxxxx> >>> Signed-off-by: Eric W. Biederman <ebiederm@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> >> It would be really nice to merge or group this together with the first >> three patches. Other than that, > > Perfection is the enemy of the good on that one. That just convolutes > things unnecessarily, makes the patches harder to review, and requires > additional testing. > > I much prefer to work in a tree without rewinding. Everything is a matter of degree and I don't think my bar here was too high. Unless patches are in some exported tree and when the content of the patchset changes (you're changing the behavior of the same code two times), reordering patches is what's usually done. When the end results stay the same, reshuffling isn't that much of work, is it? Well, I'm not the maintainer and things like this are mostly upto the maintainer, so let's leave it to be decided by Greg. Thanks. -- tejun -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-fsdevel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
