Return-Path: <linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org>
Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand
        id S1751971AbdHGRaW (ORCPT <rfc822;w@1wt.eu>);
        Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:30:22 -0400
Received: from userp1040.oracle.com ([156.151.31.81]:29252 "EHLO
        userp1040.oracle.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org
        with ESMTP id S1751426AbdHGRaU (ORCPT
        <rfc822;linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org>);
        Mon, 7 Aug 2017 13:30:20 -0400
To: Johannes Thumshirn <jthumshirn@suse.de>
Cc: Arvind Yadav <arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com>, martin.petersen@oracle.com,
        jejb@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mdr@sgi.com, hare@suse.com,
        aacraid@adaptec.com, matthew@wil.cx, fthain@telegraphics.com.au,
        schmitzmic@gmail.com, kashyap.desai@broadcom.com,
        sumit.saxena@broadcom.com, gotom@debian.or.jp,
        mrochs@linux.vnet.ibm.com, yokota@netlab.is.tsukuba.ac.jp,
        QLogic-Storage-Upstream@cavium.com, jinpu.wang@profitbricks.com,
        linux-scsi@vger.kernel.org, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/29] constify scsi pci_device_id.
From: "Martin K. Petersen" <martin.petersen@oracle.com>
Organization: Oracle Corporation
References: <1501403839-8876-1-git-send-email-arvind.yadav.cs@gmail.com>
        <20170731075647.GB4316@linux-x5ow.site>
        <6b6ba203-1352-26ed-8d7e-c14e7bb25d32@gmail.com>
        <20170731092753.GB6417@linux-x5ow.site>
Date: Mon, 07 Aug 2017 13:28:18 -0400
In-Reply-To: <20170731092753.GB6417@linux-x5ow.site> (Johannes Thumshirn's
        message of "Mon, 31 Jul 2017 11:27:53 +0200")
Message-ID: <yq1tw1j9tjh.fsf@oracle.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/25.2 (gnu/linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain
X-Source-IP: aserv0022.oracle.com [141.146.126.234]
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
List-ID: <linux-kernel.vger.kernel.org>
X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 593
Lines: 19


Johannes,

> Ultimately it's up to Martin and James but I don't see a hughe benefit
> in having it all in a separate patch.

Generally speaking, I prefer driver maintainers to be able to sign off
on changes to their code. So I tend to lean towards a per-driver
grouping.

However, having a bazillion identical commit messages is also really
annoying. So for automated changes like this, I'd rather just have a
single patch.

It needs to have a really good and comprehensive commit messages that
justifies the (sub) tree-wide change, though...

-- 
Martin K. Petersen	Oracle Linux Engineering