From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Patrick McHardy Subject: Re: 0/8 Netfilter patches (group 2) Date: Tue, 08 Apr 2008 18:23:00 +0200 Message-ID: <47FB9BE4.5060209@trash.net> References: <47FB99CA.5060002@trash.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-15; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Netfilter Developer Mailing List To: Jan Engelhardt Return-path: Received: from stinky.trash.net ([213.144.137.162]:43794 "EHLO stinky.trash.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751744AbYDHQXC (ORCPT ); Tue, 8 Apr 2008 12:23:02 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netfilter-devel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: Jan Engelhardt wrote: > On Tuesday 2008-04-08 18:14, Patrick McHardy wrote: >> Small suggestion for improvement (don't worry, your series >> is fine :)): the best ordering for all these patches would >> have been: >> >> Set 1: boolean conversions >> Set 2: length match (shouldn't have dependencies) >> Set 3: recent match (also shouldn't have dependencies) >> Set 4: prefix table >> Set 5: TCPMSS target >> Set 6: ARP-tables patches > > You would not believe it, but it was set-ordered. > YMMV what makes up a set, though. > > [...] > Invent house numbering? > > [patch 12/xx] xt_length > [patch 12a/xx] xt_length userspace > [patch 13/xx] xt_foobar (kernel only thing) > [patch 14/xx] xt_bazzzz > [patch 14a/xx] .. > > don't think git likes that :p :) Just sending them seperately makes the barriers explicit, so that makes most sense IMO.