On 12/03/2009 05:06 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
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.
Did the patch contain -cosmetic- changes intermingled with code changes,
in the same code lines? No.
Is it good kernel practice to intermingle cosmetic changes with
functional ones, in the same code lines? Also, no.
Jeff
--
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
