On Sun, Sep 12, 2010 at 9:25 PM, Jeff Layton <jlay...@samba.org> wrote: > >> > >> > Would it be reasonable to split the simple mac_key to session_key >> > rename part into a separate patch from the ones that actually change >> > behavior? >> >> OK. But I am not sure what we are trying to achieve here churning >> these patches so >> many times for a simple change. Not sure who the audience is. >> > > I'm trying to achieve clarity and bisectability. By separating the > trivial changes from the substantive ones, the patches become smaller > and the changes they introduce are more evident. > > For the clarity piece, the audience is those of us who are spending > time to review them (so far, Steve, Suresh and I). All of us have > limited amounts of time available to spend on review. None of us > want to spend time sifting through the trivial changes in these patches > to hunt down the ones that actually change behavior. > > -- > Jeff Layton <jlay...@samba.org> > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-cifs" in > the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html >
OK, I will make the change. I am now not sure whether that should be a separate patch altogether or one of the patches that belongs to this patchset i.e. 2 of x or 3 of x etc.. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-crypto" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
