From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: ebiederm@xmission.com (Eric W. Biederman) Subject: Re: [PATCH 12/16] net: Support multiple network namespaces with netlink Date: Mon, 10 Sep 2007 09:24:23 -0600 Message-ID: References: <46E54AC8.7000609@openvz.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Cc: David Miller , netdev@vger.kernel.org, Linux Containers To: Pavel Emelyanov Return-path: Received: from ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com ([166.70.28.69]:53692 "EHLO ebiederm.dsl.xmission.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1757833AbXIJPYx (ORCPT ); Mon, 10 Sep 2007 11:24:53 -0400 In-Reply-To: <46E54AC8.7000609@openvz.org> (Pavel Emelyanov's message of "Mon, 10 Sep 2007 17:46:48 +0400") Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: netdev.vger.kernel.org Pavel Emelyanov writes: > > Rrrrrr. This is the 5th or even the 6th patch that changes tens of files > but (!) most of these changes are just propagating some core thing into > protocols, drivers, etc. E.g. you add an argument to some function and > then make all the rest use it, but the chunk adding the argument itself > is buried in these changes. > > Why not make a reviewers' lifes easier and make (with hands) the core > hunks go first and the "propagation" ones at the end? For RFC purpose > I would even break the git-bisect safeness and splitted these patches > into 2 parts: those with the core and those with the propagation. Agreed, this is an issue for easy review. My apologies. I guess it was a failure in my imagination on how to prepare these patches for review, in a way that was both reviewer and preparer friendly. There is at least one /proc idiom change that needs to be made so I will keep this in mind for the resend. Eric