To: "Bryan O'Sullivan" <bos@pathscale.com>
Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, openib-general@openib.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1 of 10] ipath - fix spinlock recursion bug
References: <bc968dacc8608566f4d2.1148409149@eng-12.pathscale.com>
	<adawtccqwhg.fsf@cisco.com>
	<1148419611.22550.11.camel@chalcedony.pathscale.com>
From: Roland Dreier <rdreier@cisco.com>
Date: Tue, 23 May 2006 14:31:00 -0700
In-Reply-To: <1148419611.22550.11.camel@chalcedony.pathscale.com> (Bryan O'Sullivan's message of "Tue, 23 May 2006 14:26:51 -0700")
Message-ID: <adasln0qvhn.fsf@cisco.com>
User-Agent: Gnus/5.1007 (Gnus v5.10.7) XEmacs/21.4.18 (linux)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 634
Lines: 15

    Bryan> How do you feel about taking one code motion patch for
    Bryan> 2.6.17?  :-)

It's probably OK as long as it's pure code motion.  In other words
separate the actual fixes from moving code around.  What I want to
avoid is the giant combo patch that does several different things,
because if someone later bisects a regression back to that patch,
we're kind of screwed...

 - R.
-
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/