DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws;
        d=gmail.com; s=gamma;
        h=sender:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:cc:subject
         :references:in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding;
        b=M+K+SiBNAz8UV+3Nj/9WgIHM9r3mwaIkAxvkEq8Is8UL7h3JyMhHJbRt0yFq8E0ypc
         HqJ+jazYrfj13gLm3homcRt2OUX+2xqCn0YNM/UrY58Ek8VHcPPEN8gKyTuvhE3JDGzX
         tR0NmgZdDpGFt/XYObX4KEFeHOjL7Mf3pDm+4=
Message-ID: <4B18357C.8070807@garzik.org>
Date: Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:02:36 -0500
From: Jeff Garzik <jeff@garzik.org>
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; U; Linux x86_64; en-US; rv:1.9.1.4pre) Gecko/20091014 Fedora/3.0-2.8.b4.fc11 Thunderbird/3.0b4
MIME-Version: 1.0
To: Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz <bzolnier@gmail.com>
CC: Alan Cox <alan@lxorguk.ukuu.org.uk>, linux-ide@vger.kernel.org,
       linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/86] PATA fixes
References: <20091125170218.5446.13513.sendpatchset@localhost> <200912032242.05785.bzolnier@gmail.com> <4B1832CD.5040809@garzik.org> <200912032256.39790.bzolnier@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <200912032256.39790.bzolnier@gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 2451
Lines: 68

On 12/03/2009 04:56 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> On Thursday 03 December 2009 10:51:09 pm Jeff Garzik wrote:
>
>>>>>          pata_via: clear UDMA transfer mode bit for PIO and MWDMA
>>>>
>>>> applied -- even though Alan's comment was correct.  It is standard
>>>> kernel practice to place cosmetic changes into their own patches,
>>>> because it is standard kernel practice to break up logically distinct
>>>> changes.
>>>
>>> We are talking about:
>>>
>>>    pata_via.c |   19 +++++++++++++------
>>>    1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> patch here (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/25/380) and cosmetic change
>>> is clearly documented in the patch description.
>>>
>>>
>>> Do people really wonder why I find upstream to be too much hassle to
>>> deal with?
>>
>> The thousand other kernel developers seem to be able to split up their
>> patches, separating out cosmetic changes from functional ones.  It has
>> clear engineering benefits, and has been standard practice for a decade
>> or more.
>>
>> Why is it such an imposition for your patches to look like everyone
>> else's?  And by "everyone", I mean all other kernel developers, not just
>> other ATA developers.
>>
>> You seem to consider standard kernel practice a hassle.  Separating out
>> cosmetic changes is not only a libata practice, it is the norm for the
>> entire kernel.
>
> Indeed.
>
>  From 94be9a58d7e683ac3c1df1858a17f09ebade8da0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> From: Jeff Garzik<jeff@garzik.org>
> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:17:09 -0500
> Subject: [PATCH] [libata] get-identity ioctl: Fix use of invalid memory pointer
>   for SAS drivers.
>
> Caught by Ke Wei (and team?) at Marvell.
>
> Also, move the ata_scsi_ioctl export to libata-scsi.c, as that seems to be the
> general trend.
>
> Acked-by: James Bottomley<James.Bottomley@HansenPartnership.com>
> Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik<jgarzik@redhat.com>

If your point, by posting this patch, is that it includes a ton of 
gratuitous cosmetic changes, you misread the patch.

ata_scsi_ioctl() remains in existence; only the callers need to use the 
new SAS-related ioctl function were updated.  The remainder continued to 
use ata_scsi_ioctl().

	Jeff


--
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/