On Wed, 2018-06-13 at 11:49 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > On Tue, Jun 12, 2018 at 8:29 PM, Joe Perches <joe@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Tue, 2018-06-12 at 17:12 -0400, Paul Moore wrote: > > > Joe, in general I really appreciate the fixes you send, but these > > > patches that cross a lot of subsystem boundaries (this isn't the first > > > one that does this) causes unnecessary conflicts in -next and during > > > the merge window. Could you split your patches up from now on please? > > > > Sorry. No. Merge conflicts are inherent in this system. > > Yes, merge conflicts are inherent in this system when one makes a > single change which impacts multiple subsystems, e.g. changing a core > kernel function which is called by multiple subsystems. However, that > isn't what this patch does, it makes a number of self-contained > changes across multiple subsystems; there are no cross-subsystem > dependencies in this patch. You are increasing the likelihood of > conflicts for no good reason; that is why I'm asking you to split this > patch and others like it. No. History shows with high certainty that splitting patches like this across multiple subsystems of a primary subsystem means that the entire patchset is not completely applied. It's _much_ simpler and provides a generic mechanism to get the entire patch applied to send a single patch to the top level subsystem maintainer.
