From: Arnd Bergmann <arnd@arndb.de>
To: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [RFC PATCH 03/43] ptrace: change signature of arch_ptrace()
Date: Fri, 27 Aug 2010 16:28:39 +0200
User-Agent: KMail/1.12.2 (Linux/2.6.35-16-generic; KDE/4.3.2; x86_64; ; )
Cc: Roland McGrath <roland@redhat.com>, Oleg Nesterov <oleg@redhat.com>,
        linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org
References: <1282902149-12991-1-git-send-email-namhyung@gmail.com> <1282902149-12991-4-git-send-email-namhyung@gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <1282902149-12991-4-git-send-email-namhyung@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: Text/Plain;
  charset="iso-8859-15"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-Id: <201008271628.40023.arnd@arndb.de>
Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org
Content-Length: 1128
Lines: 26

On Friday 27 August 2010, Namhyung Kim wrote:
> change type of @addr and @data into unsigned long.
> 
> NOTE: This patch might break build if applied alone so should be used with
> your arch counterpart.
> 
> Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@gmail.com>

Would it be possible to rearrange your patches so that you don't break
anything in the middle? I think merging all the trivial 'change signature'
patches into one would also make reviewing easier. Nobody in their
right mind is looking through a full series of 43 patches, especially
if they do not make sense on their own, but one patch that changes a
function signature tree-wide would be looked at by many people and can
be applied standalone.

It does make sense to keep the 'foo: clean up arch_ptrace' patches
separate though, since they are also useful on their own and need
real review by the arch maintainers.

	Arnd
--
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/