Messages in this thread | | | Date | Sat, 13 May 2006 20:54:22 -0700 | From | Greg KH <> | Subject | Re: [PATCH 0/13: eCryptfs] eCryptfs Patch Set |
| |
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 10:43:46PM -0500, Michael Halcrow wrote: > On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 01:26:55PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote: > > Compiling at each step is better than not. But my main point is > > that it is superfluously broken into multiple patches. > > This comment is from about a year ago, so it probably has fallen off > the radar: > > At 2005-06-02 14:51:54, Greg K-H wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 07:32:19AM -0500, Michael Halcrow wrote: > > > What sort of > > > logical chunks would you consider to be appropriate? Separate patches > > > for each file (inode.c, file.c, super.c, etc.), which represent sets > > > of functions for each major VFS object? > > > > Yes.
Yes, but don't break the build along the way.
thanks,
greg k-h - 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/
| |