From: Manish Katiyar Subject: Re: [PATCH 2/3] ext4 : Pass GFP_KERNEL for transaction allocation if caller can handler failures Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:04:09 -0800 Message-ID: References: <20110125161745.GC4088@quack.suse.cz> <20110130194251.GE4258@thunk.org> <20110130200712.GF4258@thunk.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: QUOTED-PRINTABLE Cc: Jan Kara , ext4 To: "Ted Ts'o" Return-path: Received: from mail-qw0-f46.google.com ([209.85.216.46]:57056 "EHLO mail-qw0-f46.google.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1750858Ab1AaBEa convert rfc822-to-8bit (ORCPT ); Sun, 30 Jan 2011 20:04:30 -0500 Received: by qwa26 with SMTP id 26so4962244qwa.19 for ; Sun, 30 Jan 2011 17:04:30 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <20110130200712.GF4258@thunk.org> Sender: linux-ext4-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 12:07 PM, Ted Ts'o wrote: > On Sun, Jan 30, 2011 at 11:44:25AM -0800, Manish Katiyar wrote: >> >> Do you mean separate patch for each of the changed functions ? > > Unless the cleanups for a set of functions are all the same issue, > yes. =A0The idea is that commit description should apply to all of th= e > patch hunks in the commit. > > That way if there is a problem, it becomes easier to bisect and then > determine what's going on by reading the commit description. =A0It al= so > becomes easier to review the changes, as well. > > Does that make sense? Hi Ted, Resending the above patch broken in following series of patch. --=20 Thanks - Manish -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-ext4" i= n the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html