From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCHSET 6/9] new EH implementation, take 2 Date: Thu, 27 Apr 2006 05:16:00 -0400 Message-ID: <44508BD0.7040401@pobox.com> References: <11447633013561-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from srv5.dvmed.net ([207.36.208.214]:27043 "EHLO mail.dvmed.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S964998AbWD0JQI (ORCPT ); Thu, 27 Apr 2006 05:16:08 -0400 In-Reply-To: <11447633013561-git-send-email-htejun@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Tejun Heo Cc: alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk, axboe@suse.de, albertcc@tw.ibm.com, lkosewsk@gmail.com, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org General comment: My general feeling as I read these patchsets is that the patches are a bit /too/ split up. I know its largely a judgement call, but don't be afraid to submit larger patches, particularly for new features like NCQ. The several patches are highly interdependent, and they are introducing new code, might as well just lump them together. Following the "one logical change per patch" rule doesn't have to mean "add one new function per patch" Jeff