From: Jarkko Sakkinen <jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com>
To: Jason Gunthorpe <jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.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 22:51:52 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20151201205152.GA5071@intel.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20151201174342.GD691@obsidianresearch.com>
On Tue, Dec 01, 2015 at 10:43:42AM -0700, Jason Gunthorpe wrote:
> 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..
Just saying that at least for me it was easier to understand what was
going on once I squashed the patch. Labels were the only really
confusing part, not the patch size...
> Jason
/Jarkko
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-12-01 20:52 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
2015-12-01 20:51 ` Jarkko Sakkinen [this message]
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=20151201205152.GA5071@intel.com \
--to=jarkko.sakkinen@linux.intel.com \
--cc=Martin.Wilck@ts.fujitsu.com \
--cc=jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.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