On Fri, May 22, 2015 at 03:08:44PM +0000, Simmons, James A. wrote:
>This patch does a lot of stuff all at once and it is hard to
review. It
>could easily be broken into patches which are easy to review.
I have more very large patches. With breaking them up that means you are
going to see hundreds of patches coming from me.
The problem here is that we have two upstreams which have diverged and
you're hopefully merging them into one upstream for the future.
Breaking things up into patches is a pain and it basically means you
have to do a lot of the work a second time. It sucks for you and I
totally understand that... :(
We regulary review 100+ patch series so that's not a big deal.
We still have to review a ball of code with it broken up or not broken
up but when it's broken up then I have scripts to strip out much of the
mechanical changes.
>Ok in this next section we move functions around and rename them
but
>also introduce some bad changes in the new function.
Thanks for pointing out these bugs. We are still carrying these bugs in the
OpenSFS branch. Once you approve these changes I will sync up lib-socket.c
in the OpenSFS branch.
P.S
Does the 3rd patch look okay to you?
Yeah. That looks fine.
regards,
dan carpenter