Re: [Fwd: [PATCH 3/5] NFS: Abstract out namespace initialisation [try #2]]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



David Howells wrote:

AIUI, each patch must stand on its own in every regard. I guess you need to make it inline in the later patch - or not at all given the marginal speed difference vs. core size increase.

No. It has to be permissable to make a series of patches that depend one upon
another for at least three reasons:

(1) Patches can be unmanageably large in one lump, so splitting them up is a
    sensible option, even through the individual patches won't work or even
    compile independently.

(2) It may make sense to place linked changes to two logically separate units
    in two separate patches, for instance I'm changing the core kernel to add
    an extra argument to get_sb() and the get_sb_*() convenience functions in
    one patch and then supplying another patch to change all the filesystems.

    This makes it much easier for a reviewer to see what's going on. They know
    the patches are interdependent, but they can see the main core of the
    changes separated out from the massively repetative but basically less
    interesting changes that are a side effect of the main change.

(3) A series of patches may form a set of logical steps (for instance my
    patches 1-2 are the first step and patches 3-5 the second). It may be (and
    it is in my case) that each step will build and run, provided all the
    previous steps are applied; but that a step won't build or run without the
    preceding steps.

Remember: one of the main reasons for splitting patches is to make it easier
for other people to appreciate just how sublimely terrific your work is:-)

Interesting. I've just seen patches slammed by subsystem maintainers before for doing things "the wrong way around" within a patchset.

I don't remember seeing this covered in TPP, am I missing having read a guide document or is this grey area?

Sam.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

[Index of Archives]     [Kernel Newbies]     [Netfilter]     [Bugtraq]     [Photo]     [Stuff]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [MIPS Linux]     [ARM Linux]     [Linux Security]     [Linux RAID]     [Video 4 Linux]     [Linux for the blind]     [Linux Resources]
  Powered by Linux