From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrew Morton Subject: Re: block/bsg.c Date: Tue, 17 Jul 2007 12:18:21 -0700 Message-ID: <20070717121821.3212cd60.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <20070716165706.348f6bbf.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <20070717063810.GY5195@kernel.dk> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from smtp2.linux-foundation.org ([207.189.120.14]:48735 "EHLO smtp2.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757370AbXGQTZ1 (ORCPT ); Tue, 17 Jul 2007 15:25:27 -0400 In-Reply-To: <20070717063810.GY5195@kernel.dk> Sender: linux-scsi-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org To: Jens Axboe Cc: FUJITA Tomonori , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org On Tue, 17 Jul 2007 08:38:11 +0200 Jens Axboe wrote: > > In terms of presentation: this code hit the tree as base patch plus what > > appear to be 20 bugfixes, none of which are really interesting or relevant > > to mainline. Personally I think it would be nicer if all that out-of-tree > > development work was cleaned up and the new code goes in as a single hit. > > > > This makes it a lot easier to find out "wtf does this code all do". One > > finds the first commit and reads the changlog. But this algorithm yields: > > > > bsg: support for full generic block layer SG v3 > > > > which is not helpful. > > I agree, I did consider rebasing the merging all patches into a single > commit prior to submission. In retrospect that would have been better, > the bug fixes commits prior to inclusion is not that interesting. I'm doing a git-bisect and.... block/bsg.c: In function 'bsg_register_queue': block/bsg.c:1014: error: 'struct kobject' has no member named 'dentry' That's easily fixable in config, but it's another reason for doing that consolidation prior to merging.