From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: Lai Jiangshan <laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 02/13 V6] remus: implement network buffering
 hotplug scripts
Date: Mon, 10 Feb 2014 10:29:51 +0800
Message-ID: <52F8399F.5030804@cn.fujitsu.com>
References: <1390295117-718-1-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>	
	<1390295117-718-3-git-send-email-laijs@cn.fujitsu.com>	
	<CAP8mzPPhwsQ=mn-xJAG7FzvHoBdSBVdrtFdzgMJM2gac_CpmuA@mail.gmail.com>	
	<52E60568.7060305@cn.fujitsu.com>	
	<CAP8mzPOdaTzGPHRzg=v_CUOEJk-40e=Qv6rAyG3joUnoTbeoaA@mail.gmail.com>
	<1390901372.7753.2.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Return-path: <xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org>
In-Reply-To: <1390901372.7753.2.camel@kazak.uk.xensource.com>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Post: <mailto:xen-devel@lists.xen.org>
List-Help: <mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.xen.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/xen-devel>,
	<mailto:xen-devel-request@lists.xen.org?subject=subscribe>
Sender: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
Errors-To: xen-devel-bounces@lists.xen.org
To: Ian Campbell <Ian.Campbell@citrix.com>
Cc: Dong Eddie <eddie.dong@intel.com>, Wen Congyang <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>, Stefano Stabellini <stefano.stabellini@eu.citrix.com>, Andrew Cooper <andrew.cooper3@citrix.com>, Jiang Yunhong <yunhong.jiang@intel.com>, Ian Jackson <ian.jackson@eu.citrix.com>, "xen-devel@lists.xen.org" <xen-devel@lists.xen.org>, rshriram@cs.ubc.ca, Roger Pau Monne <roger.pau@citrix.com>
List-Id: xen-devel@lists.xenproject.org

On 01/28/2014 05:29 PM, Ian Campbell wrote:
> On Mon, 2014-01-27 at 10:05 -0800, Shriram Rajagopalan wrote:
>> On Sun, Jan 26, 2014 at 11:06 PM, Wen Congyang <wency@cn.fujitsu.com>
>> wrote:
>>         > The last time I posted this script, the feedback was that
>>         the script and> the code invoking > the script should be in a
>>         single patch. So I would suggest doing the same.
>>         
>>         
>>         We use the script in patch6. It adds 479 lines. These two
>>         patches are big patches(add more than 100 lines), so why put
>>         them into a single patch?
> 
>>
>> That is a valid question. IIRC, IanJ was the one who wanted the code
>> and the script together. IanJ, any thoughts?

> 
> Unless the patches are so big they won't get past the mailing list
> filters (which are 100s of Kb I think) the important thing is the
> logical separation of functionality into separate patches, not the
> individual line count of each patch.
> 

We did the logically separate, patches are split by functionalities, ^_^.
They are a little more fine-grain-separation than previous versions.
fine-grain-separation patches are much convenient to be reviewed in the
mail-list and in the future changlog.

If any one insist the original way, we will change it back.

thx,
Lai