Re: [PATCH 0/13: eCryptfs] eCryptfs Patch Set

Greg KH
2006-05-14T03:56:39Z

On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 10:43:46PM -0500, Michael Halcrow wrote:
> On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 01:26:55PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> > Compiling at each step is better than not. But my main point is
> > that it is superfluously broken into multiple patches.
>
> This comment is from about a year ago, so it probably has fallen off
> the radar:
>
> At 2005-06-02 14:51:54, Greg K-H wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 07:32:19AM -0500, Michael Halcrow wrote:
> > > What sort of
> > > logical chunks would you consider to be appropriate? Separate patches
> > > for each file (inode.c, file.c, super.c, etc.), which represent sets
> > > of functions for each major VFS object?
> >
> > Yes.

Yes, but don't break the build along the way.

thanks,

greg k-h