Date: Fri, 04 May 2007 12:54:42 -0700 (PDT)
Message-Id: <20070504.125442.70218284.davem@davemloft.net>
To: snitzer@gmail.com
Cc: dwalker@mvista.com, a.p.zijlstra@chello.nl, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-mm@kvack.org, netdev@vger.kernel.org, trond.myklebust@fys.uio.no,
       tgraf@suug.ch, James.Bottomley@steeleye.com, michaelc@cs.wisc.edu,
       akpm@linux-foundation.org, phillips@google.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/40] Swap over Networked storage -v12
From: David Miller <davem@davemloft.net>
In-Reply-To: <170fa0d20705041109j1d130456p4b7cef3633f8edb4@mail.gmail.com>
References: <1178293081.24217.46.camel@twins>
	<1178294379.7997.26.camel@imap.mvista.com>
	<170fa0d20705041109j1d130456p4b7cef3633f8edb4@mail.gmail.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 849
Lines: 20

From: "Mike Snitzer" <snitzer@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 4 May 2007 14:09:40 -0400

> These suggestions conflict in the case of a large patchset: the second
> can't be met if you honor the first (more important suggestion IMHO).
> Unless you leave something out... and I can't see the value in leaving
> out the auxiliary consumers of the core changes.

They do not conflict.

If you say you're setting up infrastructure for a well defined
purpose, then each and every one of the patches can all stand on their
own just fine.  You can even post them one at a time and the review
process would work just fine.

-
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/