Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
	id S1756489AbaGNRVi (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
	Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:21:38 -0400
Received: from mail.linuxfoundation.org ([140.211.169.12]:33450 "EHLO
	mail.linuxfoundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
	with ESMTP id S1751492AbaGNRVb (ORCPT
	<rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
	Mon, 14 Jul 2014 13:21:31 -0400
Date: Mon, 14 Jul 2014 10:26:02 -0700
From: Greg KH <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
To: Peter Senna Tschudin <peter.senna@gmail.com>
Cc: Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        Malcolm Priestley <tvboxspy@gmail.com>,
        kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        "linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org" <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>,
        Forest Bond <forest@alittletooquiet.net>
Subject: Re: [PATCH V2 1/4] staging: vt6556: Cleanup coding style issues
Message-ID: <20140714172602.GB9870@kroah.com>
References: <1405278681-3348-1-git-send-email-peter.senna@gmail.com>
 <20140713193647.GA31010@kroah.com>
 <20140714085932.GA2958@hp-peter.rsr.lip6.fr>
 <20140714141231.GM25880@mwanda>
 <CA+MoWDpQBQYqZ2ZLM3-17cfQQ0LjMcv702ZxVv10M5Wd895rJg@mail.gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <CA+MoWDpQBQYqZ2ZLM3-17cfQQ0LjMcv702ZxVv10M5Wd895rJg@mail.gmail.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12)
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org

On Mon, Jul 14, 2014 at 07:01:37PM +0200, Peter Senna Tschudin wrote:
> <note>
> I'm not trying to push my changes over the rules. I'm trying to
> understand the problem, to avoid creating similar noise in the future.
> </note>
> 
> Now I understand that the problem with the series of 4 patches is that
> the subject is the same on the 4 patches. Having the same subject in 4
> patches is not good. I got this one.
> 
> But I have no clue why joining 4 cleanup patches into 1 is bad. The
> patches are all for the same driver, are all silencing checkpatch
> warnings, and even the typedef stuff was reported by checkpatch. The
> commit message of the single patch describes it all. If the subject of
> the series is the problem, why not make a single patch instead of a
> series of similar patches? It made sense from my perspective. So what
> is the problem in re-submit 4 similar patches as a single patch?

Because it is _much_ harder to review a patch that way.  I get a few
hundred patches a week to review.  If you only do one thing per patch,
it is trivial to review, and you don't have to pick through a patch to
determine if all of it is correct based on a larger patch, that does
multiple things.

Also, the rule for a kernel patch is "do only one thing".  If you do:
	- remove typedef
	- fix space layout
for a single file, that really is 2 different things, yet you could
claim they are both "coding style cleanups".  Reviewing both of these at
the same time, together, makes it much harder to do.

Remember, for the kernel, we waste individual developer's time, at the
expense of reviewer's time, as we have far more developers than
reviewers.

Hope this helps explain things more.

greg k-h
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/