From: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com>
To: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
Cc: "Uwe Kleine-König" <u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de>,
tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
"Martin Wilck" <Martin.Wilck@ts.fujitsu.com>,
"Peter Huewe" <peterhuewe@gmx.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tpm_tis: Clean up the force=1 module parameter
Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 10:43:42 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151201174342.GD691@obsidianresearch.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151201083508.GA14084@intel.com>
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:35:08AM +0200, Jarkko Sakkinen wrote:
> In addition I want this fix as a single patch, not as two-patch set.
> The first patch might have made sense when the fix was being developed
> but now it's just really akward change.
No, you are not in tune with the kernel standard when you are
suggesting merging these patches. Each patch is self contained, encompasses a
single idea/change, and is justifiable on its own.
Ie SubmittingPatches explains:
The point to remember is that each patch should make an easily understood
change that can be verified by reviewers. Each patch should be
justifiable on its own merits.
If anything the larger patch should be split, because there is alot
going on there..
Jason
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-01 17:43 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 12+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-11-30 19:27 tpm_tis: Clean up force module parameter Jason Gunthorpe
2015-11-30 19:27 ` [PATCH 1/2] tpm_tis: Disable interrupt auto probing on a per-device basis Jason Gunthorpe
2015-12-01 7:17 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-12-01 17:26 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2015-11-30 19:27 ` [PATCH 2/2] tpm_tis: Clean up the force=1 module parameter Jason Gunthorpe
2015-12-01 7:28 ` Uwe Kleine-König
2015-12-01 8:35 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-12-01 17:43 ` Jason Gunthorpe [this message]
2015-12-01 20:51 ` Jarkko Sakkinen
2015-12-01 17:35 ` Jason Gunthorpe
2015-12-01 11:50 ` [tpmdd-devel] " Wilck, Martin
2015-12-01 17:39 ` Jason Gunthorpe
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=20151201174342.GD691@obsidianresearch.com \
--to=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com \
--cc=Martin.Wilck@ts.fujitsu.com \
--cc=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org \
--cc=peterhuewe@gmx.de \
--cc=tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net \
--cc=u.kleine-koenig@pengutronix.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox