Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S1754030Ab1ECXJF (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 May 2011 19:09:05 -0400 Received: from smtp-out.google.com ([74.125.121.67]:48532 "EHLO smtp-out.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753918Ab1ECXJD (ORCPT ); Tue, 3 May 2011 19:09:03 -0400 DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=google.com; s=beta; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; b=dNtUwD3xgKmbeXUGgXtiFod8+E7RS43uf65VC+4coO0gt4Cxq7WfDWJTGozXfWIlnv txyeAeNwwNjrvk/ok7Lg== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: <1304463276.25414.2420.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> References: <1303513438-26519-1-git-send-email-vnagarnaik@google.com> <1304124773-24935-1-git-send-email-vnagarnaik@google.com> <20110503131820.GB23498@redhat.com> <1304463276.25414.2420.camel@gandalf.stny.rr.com> From: David Sharp Date: Tue, 3 May 2011 16:08:39 -0700 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] x86: Change trap definitions to enumerated values To: Steven Rostedt Cc: Michael Rubin , Vaibhav Nagarnaik , Don Zickus , Thomas Gleixner , Ingo Molnar , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, x86@kernel.org, Aditya Kali Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 X-System-Of-Record: true Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Content-Length: 1574 Lines: 38 Well, these two patches were one patch originally, and we broke it up before sending it to you, but we made a couple mistakes: - missed that there were still tracepoints in this patch (it's a long, repetitive patch). - over-estimated the resistance to this patch, and under-estimated resistance to the tracepoint patch, so put the tracepoint patch first. We're learning... On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 3:54 PM, Steven Rostedt wrote: > On Tue, 2011-05-03 at 15:41 -0700, Michael Rubin wrote: >> On Tue, May 3, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Vaibhav Nagarnaik >> wrote: >> > Would it make better sense to separate this patch into 2 patches, the first >> > one replacing the numbers to enums and the second one adding the tracepoints? >> >> Yes please do that. >> Each patch should stand on its own with one simple purpose if possible. > > Agreed. Don't break up patches just because of size, but instead with > purpose. Usually this breaks up large patches as you want to build up > something, piece by piece, where each piece has a specific, easy to > understand goal. > > This is actually what is taking me so long to get my ftrace rewrite out. > Not the actual work, but coming up with a way to break up that work in > logical steps, that makes it easy to understand and review. > > -- Steve > > > -- 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/