On Fri, Mar 17, 2017 at 12:47 AM, Eric Sandeen <sandeen@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On 3/16/17 4:38 PM, Luis R. Rodriguez wrote: >> On Wed, Mar 15, 2017 at 04:59:55PM +0100, Jan Tulak wrote: >>> This set is a follow-up of some old discussions and further attempts to untangle >>> the spaghetti in options parsing. In short, this patchset allows to define >>> cross-option conflicts and makes the conflicts detection more robust. >> >> This series is pretty large. There are quite a bit of patches which just rename >> something, or just shove code from one place to another. Can you group up >> non-functional changes together first, and send a small series of simple stuff >> with no functional changes first? > > I have to say I'm still struggling with it as well. Apologies for the > random detail nitpicking, I'm trying to look through it all to get a better > big picture. No issue. I guess that if I split the changes differently, it might be easier to read. I need to find a better way how to present/group the changes. > > And as far as "no-op changes" it's imperative to make them really no-op. > Make sure that other random changes aren't stuck into the middle of anything... > Of course. :-) > I'll probably keep flinging comments on various patches as I read them, > some of it may be helpful in terms of just learning some best practice > for patches, but TBH I'm still trying to wrap my head around the big change > and purpose. > OK. We can talk about it next week personally if needed. And decide whether it is worth to reorganise this set into no-op and op changes. Cheers, Jan -- Jan Tulak jtulak@xxxxxxxxxx / jan@xxxxxxxx -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-xfs" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
