From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1753571AbcLGTms (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Dec 2016 14:42:48 -0500 Received: from casper.infradead.org ([85.118.1.10]:44490 "EHLO casper.infradead.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1752942AbcLGTmr (ORCPT ); Wed, 7 Dec 2016 14:42:47 -0500 Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2016 19:18:36 +0000 (GMT) From: James Simmons To: Dan Carpenter cc: "Dilger, Andreas" , "devel@driverdev.osuosl.org" , Greg Kroah-Hartman , Linux Kernel Mailing List , "Drokin, Oleg" , Lustre Development List Subject: Re: [lustre-devel] [PATCH 3/6] staging: lustre: obdclass: Create a header for obdo related functions In-Reply-To: <20161205220647.GD8244@mwanda> Message-ID: References: <1480707650-24089-1-git-send-email-jsimmons@infradead.org> <1480707650-24089-4-git-send-email-jsimmons@infradead.org> <20161205205005.GA31243@mwanda> <2394CAB0-41C1-4F3B-AF94-03D302F6ABF5@intel.com> <20161205220647.GD8244@mwanda> User-Agent: Alpine 2.20 (LFD 67 2015-01-07) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-CRM114-Version: 20100106-BlameMichelson ( TRE 0.8.0 (BSD) ) MR-646709E3 X-CRM114-CacheID: sfid-20161207_191837_023070_8FFFEFA2 X-CRM114-Status: GOOD ( 14.89 ) X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam-Report: SpamAssassin version 3.4.1 on casper.infradead.org summary: Content analysis details: (-1.9 points, 5.0 required) pts rule name description ---- ---------------------- -------------------------------------------------- -0.0 NO_RELAYS Informational: message was not relayed via SMTP -1.9 BAYES_00 BODY: Bayes spam probability is 0 to 1% [score: 0.0000] Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org > Sorry, I was unclear. I have no problem with white space changes on > their own or when they are on the same line as something else you're > changing. > > What I meant is that when you're just moving functions around then don't > mix unrelated white space changes into that patch. I have automated > scripts for reviewing moving code around but slight changes mean that I > have to review it manually line by line to spot the difference. I can > review a one liner cleanup in about 10 seconds but it's finding the line > which changed that's the problem in this case. > > And I'm also fine with this patch since I already reviewed it, but in > the future, please avoid the temptation to do cleanups until after. Okay, I can do that. I was just trying to create checkpatch clean patches.