Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1755223AbZFDImI (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2009 04:42:08 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S1752177AbZFDIl5 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2009 04:41:57 -0400 Received: from smtp1.linux-foundation.org ([140.211.169.13]:47710 "EHLO smtp1.linux-foundation.org" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1751650AbZFDIl4 (ORCPT ); Thu, 4 Jun 2009 04:41:56 -0400 Date: Thu, 4 Jun 2009 01:40:31 -0700 From: Andrew Morton To: Peter Oberparleiter Cc: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, andi@firstfloor.org, ying.huang@intel.com, W.Li@Sun.COM, michaele@au1.ibm.com, mingo@elte.hu, heicars2@linux.vnet.ibm.com, mschwid2@linux.vnet.ibm.com Subject: Re: [PATCH 3/4] gcov: add gcov profiling infrastructure Message-Id: <20090604014031.01968da3.akpm@linux-foundation.org> In-Reply-To: <4A27853F.8060109@linux.vnet.ibm.com> References: <20090602114359.129247921@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090602114402.951631599@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090602150324.c706b1d2.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4A266546.5080601@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <4A26961E.7040207@linux.vnet.ibm.com> <20090603143923.a5387555.akpm@linux-foundation.org> <4A27853F.8060109@linux.vnet.ibm.com> X-Mailer: Sylpheed 2.4.8 (GTK+ 2.12.5; x86_64-redhat-linux-gnu) Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1045 Lines: 23 On Thu, 04 Jun 2009 10:26:39 +0200 Peter Oberparleiter wrote: > Ah, right. That answers my question whether further changes should be > posted as complete or incremental patches. yup. Incrementals are a bit more hassle, but they're hugely more friendly to people who have already reviewed the code. And occasionally when I turn a replacement patch into an incremental, it shows up things which the submitter hadn't intended be included. > is it ok to post many small > patches for -mm for minor changes like this one (simple_ -> strict_) or > do you rather prefer these to be collected into somewhat larger patches > that fix multiple minor issues? I think one patch per "issue" would be best. Although combo patches at this stage would not be a huge problem. -- 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/