From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Pekka Enberg Subject: Re: share/private/slave a subtree - define vs enum Date: Sun, 10 Jul 2005 21:21:42 +0300 Message-ID: <1121019702.20821.17.camel@localhost> References: <1120851221.9655.17.camel@localhost> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Bryan Henderson , Andrew Morton , bfields@fieldses.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linuxram@us.ibm.com, mike@waychison.com, Miklos Szeredi , Alexander Viro Return-path: Received: from courier.cs.helsinki.fi ([128.214.9.1]:19658 "EHLO mail.cs.helsinki.fi") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S262012AbVGJSWO (ORCPT ); Sun, 10 Jul 2005 14:22:14 -0400 To: Roman Zippel In-Reply-To: Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Hi Roman, At some point in time, I wrote: > > Roman, it is not as if I get to decide for the patch submitters. I > > comment on any issues _I_ have with the patch and the authors fix > > whatever they want (or what the maintainers ask for). On Fri, 2005-07-08 at 21:59 +0200, Roman Zippel wrote: > The point of a review is to comment on things that _need_ fixing. Less > experienced hackers take this a requirement for their drivers to be > included. Hmm. So we disagree on that issue as well. I think the point of review is to improve code and help others conform with the existing coding style which is why I find it strange that you're suggesting me to limit my comments to a subset you agree with. Would you please be so kind to define your criteria for things that "need fixing" so we could see if can reach some sort of an agreement on this. My list is roughly as follows: - Erroneous use of kernel API - Bad coding style - Layering violations - Duplicate code - Hard to read code Pekka