From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757007Ab0JYQIF (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:08:05 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:35695 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752764Ab0JYQIC (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:08:02 -0400 Date: Mon, 25 Oct 2010 09:07:21 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Alex Dubov Cc: Maxim Levitsky , LKML Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/29] My patch queue for memorystick subsystem Message-Id: <20101025090721.c5d3fdc6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <408703.12417.qm@web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> References: <1287972070.5205.12.camel@maxim-laptop> <408703.12417.qm@web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.7.1 (GTK+ 2.18.9; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Alex Dubov wrote: > Normally, functional > patches should precede the cosmetic one, so that the functionality can be > discussed first. More usually it's the other way around, actually: cleanups come first. Because the cleanups are usually uncontroversial, and because substantive changes against cleaner code are easier to review/understand and because the substantive changes are then easier to revert or fix.