Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 2/6] ioreq-server: tidy up use of ioreq_t

[George Dunlap <dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx>]

On Mon, Mar 10, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Paul Durrant <Paul.Durrant@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx [mailto:dunlapg@xxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of
>> George Dunlap
>> Sent: 10 March 2014 15:43
>> To: Paul Durrant
>> Cc: xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> Subject: Re: [Xen-devel] [PATCH v3 2/6] ioreq-server: tidy up use of ioreq_t
>>
>> On Wed, Mar 5, 2014 at 2:47 PM, Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>> > This patch tidies up various occurences of single element ioreq_t
>> > arrays on the stack and improves coding style.
>> >
>> > Signed-off-by: Paul Durrant <paul.durrant@xxxxxxxxxx>
>>
>> Maybe I missed this in the earlier discussion, but why is most of this
>> not integrated into patch 1?
>>
>
> It was a patch that was added after the v1 RFC patch series. I wanted to keep 
> it separate to avoid making patch 1 massively different to what it was before.

Isn't the point of the review process to change patches? :-)  In
general, both reviewers and code archaeologists (i.e., people going
through commits long after the fact) want as much as possible to know
what the end result is going to look like.  Having one patch which
does things one way, and another immediately following it that does
things a different way doesn't really help anybody, as far as I can
tell.  It only increases the amount of busy-work people have to do to
figure out what's going on.

 -George

_______________________________________________
Xen-devel mailing list
Xen-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://lists.xen.org/xen-devel