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 17:30:50 -0500 Message-ID: <4B183C1A.3080609@garzik.org> References: <20091125170218.5446.13513.sendpatchset@localhost> <200912032306.52022.bzolnier@gmail.com> <4B18376B.3080404@garzik.org> <200912032323.39846.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-yw0-f182.google.com ([209.85.211.182]:41768 "EHLO mail-yw0-f182.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751575AbZLCWas (ORCPT ); Thu, 3 Dec 2009 17:30:48 -0500 In-Reply-To: <200912032323.39846.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 05:23 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote: > On Thursday 03 December 2009 11:10:51 pm Jeff Garzik wrote: >> Is it good kernel practice to intermingle cosmetic changes with >> functional ones, in the same code lines? Also, no. > > I prefer using common sense over black-and-white rules. > > If patch is a _really_ tiny one (< 20 LOC changed) it sometimes makes > sense to save the time on handling separate patches. This is open source -- you have to consider the time saved by reviewers too. But I doubt you have saved time on all your motivated commit searches, so... Jeff