Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 3/4] staging: lustre: Less checks in
 mgc_process_recover_log() after error detection
To: Greg Kroah-Hartman <gregkh@linuxfoundation.org>
References: <566ABCD9.1060404@users.sourceforge.net>
 <566D7733.1030102@users.sourceforge.net>
 <56784D83.7080108@users.sourceforge.net>
 <56784F0C.6040007@users.sourceforge.net> <20151221234857.GA27079@kroah.com>
Cc: lustre-devel@lists.lustre.org, devel@driverdev.osuosl.org,
        Andreas Dilger <andreas.dilger@intel.com>,
        Oleg Drokin <oleg.drokin@intel.com>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>, kernel-janitors@vger.kernel.org,
        Julia Lawall <julia.lawall@lip6.fr>,
        Dan Carpenter <dan.carpenter@oracle.com>
From: SF Markus Elfring <elfring@users.sourceforge.net>
Message-ID: <5678F88B.7060201@users.sourceforge.net>
Date: Tue, 22 Dec 2015 08:15:23 +0100
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:38.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/38.4.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <20151221234857.GA27079@kroah.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=windows-1252
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 696
Lines: 20

>> 6. Apply a recommendation from the script "checkpatch.pl".
> 
> That's 6 different things, shouldn't this be 6 different patches?
> 
> please redo.

Dan Carpenter requested to squash the previous update steps 5 and 6
into a single patch for better source code review.
Now I see further software development challenges to increase
the patch granularity even more as you suggest.

Which route would Lustre developers like to follow?

Regards,
Markus
--
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/