Re: [PATCH 00/86] PATA fixes

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz]

On Thursday 03 December 2009 11:10:51 pm Jeff Garzik wrote:
> On 12/03/2009 05:06 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> > On Thursday 03 December 2009 11:02:36 pm Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >> On 12/03/2009 04:56 PM, Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz wrote:
> >>> On Thursday 03 December 2009 10:51:09 pm Jeff Garzik wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>>>>           pata_via: clear UDMA transfer mode bit for PIO and MWDMA
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> applied -- even though Alan's comment was correct.  It is standard
> >>>>>> kernel practice to place cosmetic changes into their own patches,
> >>>>>> because it is standard kernel practice to break up logically distinct
> >>>>>> changes.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> We are talking about:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>     pata_via.c |   19 +++++++++++++------
> >>>>>     1 file changed, 13 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
> >>>>>
> >>>>> patch here (http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/11/25/380) and cosmetic change
> >>>>> is clearly documented in the patch description.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Do people really wonder why I find upstream to be too much hassle to
> >>>>> deal with?
> >>>>
> >>>> The thousand other kernel developers seem to be able to split up their
> >>>> patches, separating out cosmetic changes from functional ones.  It has
> >>>> clear engineering benefits, and has been standard practice for a decade
> >>>> or more.
> >>>>
> >>>> Why is it such an imposition for your patches to look like everyone
> >>>> else's?  And by "everyone", I mean all other kernel developers, not just
> >>>> other ATA developers.
> >>>>
> >>>> You seem to consider standard kernel practice a hassle.  Separating out
> >>>> cosmetic changes is not only a libata practice, it is the norm for the
> >>>> entire kernel.
> >>>
> >>> Indeed.
> >>>
> >>>   From 94be9a58d7e683ac3c1df1858a17f09ebade8da0 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
> >>> From: Jeff Garzik<jeff@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2009 10:17:09 -0500
> >>> Subject: [PATCH] [libata] get-identity ioctl: Fix use of invalid memory pointer
> >>>    for SAS drivers.
> >>>
> >>> Caught by Ke Wei (and team?) at Marvell.
> >>>
> >>> Also, move the ata_scsi_ioctl export to libata-scsi.c, as that seems to be the
> >>> general trend.
> >>>
> >>> Acked-by: James Bottomley<James.Bottomley@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> >>> Signed-off-by: Jeff Garzik<jgarzik@xxxxxxxxxx>
> >>
> >> If your point, by posting this patch, is that it includes a ton of
> >> gratuitous cosmetic changes, you misread the patch.
> >>
> >> ata_scsi_ioctl() remains in existence; only the callers need to use the
> >> new SAS-related ioctl function were updated.  The remainder continued to
> >> use ata_scsi_ioctl().
> >
> > Moving kernel exports around is completely unrelated to a bug fix.
> 
> Did the patch contain -cosmetic- changes intermingled with code changes, 
> in the same code lines?  No.

Took me a bit longer to find such one since you are not doing much
patches any longer. ;)

> Is it good kernel practice to intermingle cosmetic changes with 
> functional ones, in the same code lines?  Also, no.

I prefer using common sense over black-and-white rules.

If patch is a _really_ tiny one (< 20 LOC changed) it sometimes makes
sense to save the time on handling separate patches.

--
Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz