Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1756872AbbLAUwI (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:52:08 -0500 Received: from mga01.intel.com ([192.55.52.88]:26607 "EHLO mga01.intel.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756144AbbLAUwF (ORCPT ); Tue, 1 Dec 2015 15:52:05 -0500 X-ExtLoop1: 1 X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="5.20,370,1444719600"; d="scan'208";a="698183984" Date: Tue, 1 Dec 2015 22:51:52 +0200 From: Jarkko Sakkinen To: Jason Gunthorpe Cc: Uwe =?iso-8859-1?Q?Kleine-K=F6nig?= , tpmdd-devel@lists.sourceforge.net, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, Martin Wilck , Peter Huewe Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/2] tpm_tis: Clean up the force=1 module parameter Message-ID: <20151201205152.GA5071@intel.com> References: <1448911632-20070-1-git-send-email-jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> <1448911632-20070-3-git-send-email-jgunthorpe@obsidianresearch.com> <20151201072835.GQ10431@pengutronix.de> <20151201083508.GA14084@intel.com> <20151201174342.GD691@obsidianresearch.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20151201174342.GD691@obsidianresearch.com> Organization: Intel Finland Oy - BIC 0357606-4 - Westendinkatu 7, 02160 Espoo User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.23 (2014-03-12) Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1272 Lines: 32 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 -- 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/