From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Jeff Garzik Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/86] PATA fixes Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:02:36 -0500 Message-ID: <4B18357C.8070807@garzik.org> References: <20091125170218.5446.13513.sendpatchset@localhost> <200912032242.05785.bzolnier@gmail.com> <4B1832CD.5040809@garzik.org> <200912032256.39790.bzolnier@gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Return-path: Received: from mail-gx0-f226.google.com ([209.85.217.226]:50057 "EHLO mail-gx0-f226.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751218AbZLCWCb (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:02:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200912032256.39790.bzolnier@gmail.com> Sender: linux-ide-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-ide@vger.kernel.org To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz Cc: Alan Cox , linux-ide@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On 12/03/2009 04:56 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > On Thursday 03 December 2009 10:51:09 pm Jeff Garzik wrote: > >>>>> pata_via: clear UDMA transfer mode bit for PIO and MWDMA >>>> >>>> applied -- even though Alan's comment was correct. It is standard >>>> kernel practice to place cosmetic changes into their own patches, >>>> because it is standard kernel practice to break up logically distinct >>>> changes. >>> >>> We are talking about: >>> >>> pata_via.c | 19 +++++++++++++------ >>> 1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-) >>> >>> patch here (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/25/380) and cosmetic change >>> is clearly documented in the patch description. >>> >>> >>> Do people really wonder why I find upstream to be too much hassle to >>> deal with? >> >> The thousand other kernel developers seem to be able to split up their >> patches, separating out cosmetic changes from functional ones. It has >> clear engineering benefits, and has been standard practice for a decade >> or more. >> >> Why is it such an imposition for your patches to look like everyone >> else's? And by "everyone", I mean all other kernel developers, not just >> other ATA developers. >> >> You seem to consider standard kernel practice a hassle. Separating out >> cosmetic changes is not only a libata practice, it is the norm for the >> entire kernel. > > Indeed. > > From 94be9a58d7e683ac3c1df1858a17f09ebade8da0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 > From: Jeff Garzik > Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:17:09 -0500 > Subject: [PATCH] [libata] get-identity ioctl: Fix use of invalid memory pointer > for SAS drivers. > > Caught by Ke Wei (and team?) at Marvell. > > Also, move the ata_scsi_ioctl export to libata-scsi.c, as that seems to be the > general trend. > > Acked-by: James Bottomley > Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik If your point, by posting this patch, is that it includes a ton of gratuitous cosmetic changes, you misread the patch. ata_scsi_ioctl() remains in existence; only the callers need to use the new SAS-related ioctl function were updated. The remainder continued to use ata_scsi_ioctl(). Jeff