From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1757737Ab0JZCcU (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:32:20 -0400 Received: from mail-fx0-f46.google.com ([209.85.161.46]:40285 "EHLO mail-fx0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1755655Ab0JZCcS (ORCPT ); Mon, 25 Oct 2010 22:32:18 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=subject:from:to:cc:in-reply-to:references:content-type:date :message-id:mime-version:x-mailer:content-transfer-encoding; b=thA4Ghc6JdVzDFQRndToTSVlT3LDQ/uVMu9i5Vo6WHH2yOGcI7+novq7/oXe3LrLls pcZaveBy5c3G325FjhK5pyrLGigf46RyAh9OskATN7o8YjTB1VnqVztHQS+KAW/WzJVc WCP8Hkxz8lQzi4TYxgS4B5lshKXOujjL0xF2g= Subject: Re: [PATCH 0/29] My patch queue for memorystick subsystem From: Maxim Levitsky To: Andrew Morton Cc: Alex Dubov , LKML In-Reply-To: <20101025090721.c5d3fdc6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> References: <1287972070.5205.12.camel@maxim-laptop> <408703.12417.qm@web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <20101025090721.c5d3fdc6.akpm@linux-foundation.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Date: Tue, 26 Oct 2010 04:32:13 +0200 Message-ID: <1288060333.4024.189.camel@maxim-laptop> Mime-Version: 1.0 X-Mailer: Evolution 2.30.3 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Mon, 2010-10-25 at 09:07 -0700, Andrew Morton wrote: > On Mon, 25 Oct 2010 07:39:58 -0700 (PDT) Alex Dubov wrote: > > > Normally, functional > > patches should precede the cosmetic one, so that the functionality can be > > discussed first. > > More usually it's the other way around, actually: cleanups come first. > > Because the cleanups are usually uncontroversial, and because > substantive changes against cleaner code are easier to > review/understand and because the substantive changes are then easier > to revert or fix. Exactly. Now let me explain another technical reason why I did it that way. First I created one big patch per driver I changed. It really wasn't reviewable, but it was intended to review the end result (the source file after patch was applied). I did that because its really slows you down when you try to edit at same time many patches. You have endless conflicts, you do lot of work that you just remove in next patch etc. Anyway this patchseries is a result of a lot of hard work (about month). Alex pointer me that that isn't acceptable in linux community. OK. I decided to bite the bullet and do that. It took me 2 full days to split patches, test them (after all, I do honor the rule of bisesctability). Now why I put the cosmetic patches first? Because that reduces conflicts during patch splitting dramaticly. Consider this stack: 3: 2: 1: 0: If I want to change patch #1, I will have to redo the patch #2 from the start. That really sucks. Now I could skip the functions that move code around, rename functions etc to make Alex happy, but my goal was to minimize differences between split-up series and original patch, so I could spare hard debugging. This is result of lot of hard work. I really want to see that in 2.6.37. Best regards, Maxim Levitsky