On Thursday 03 December 2009 11:02:36 pm Jeff Garzik wrote: > On 12/03/2009 04:56 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > > On Thursday 03 December 2009 10:51:09 pm Jeff Garzik wrote: > > > >>>>> pata_via: clear UDMA transfer mode bit for PIO and MWDMA > >>>> > >>>> applied -- even though Alan's comment was correct. It is standard > >>>> kernel practice to place cosmetic changes into their own patches, > >>>> because it is standard kernel practice to break up logically distinct > >>>> changes. > >>> > >>> We are talking about: > >>> > >>> pata_via.c | 19 +++++++++++++------ > >>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) > >>> > >>> patch here (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/25/380) and cosmetic change > >>> is clearly documented in the patch description. > >>> > >>> > >>> Do people really wonder why I find upstream to be too much hassle to > >>> deal with? > >> > >> The thousand other kernel developers seem to be able to split up their > >> patches, separating out cosmetic changes from functional ones. It has > >> clear engineering benefits, and has been standard practice for a decade > >> or more. > >> > >> Why is it such an imposition for your patches to look like everyone > >> else's? And by "everyone", I mean all other kernel developers, not just > >> other ATA developers. > >> > >> You seem to consider standard kernel practice a hassle. Separating out > >> cosmetic changes is not only a libata practice, it is the norm for the > >> entire kernel. > > > > Indeed. > > > > From 94be9a58d7e683ac3c1df1858a17f09ebade8da0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > > From: Jeff Garzik<jeff@xxxxxxxxxx> > > Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:17:09 -0500 > > Subject: [PATCH] [libata] get-identity ioctl: Fix use of invalid memory pointer > > for SAS drivers. > > > > Caught by Ke Wei (and team?) at Marvell. > > > > Also, move the ata_scsi_ioctl export to libata-scsi.c, as that seems to be the > > general trend. > > > > Acked-by: James Bottomley<James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik<jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxx> > > If your point, by posting this patch, is that it includes a ton of > gratuitous cosmetic changes, you misread the patch. > > ata_scsi_ioctl() remains in existence; only the callers need to use the > new SAS-related ioctl function were updated. The remainder continued to > use ata_scsi_ioctl(). Moving kernel exports around is completely unrelated to a bug fix. Yes, it is convenient to do it in the same patch and OK with me. -- Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ide" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
