xfs
[Top] [All Lists]

Re: [PATCH 00/25] move handling of setuid/gid bits from VFS into individ

To: Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Subject: Re: [PATCH 00/25] move handling of setuid/gid bits from VFS into individual setattr functions (RESEND)
From: Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:13:49 -0400
Cc: linux-kernel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, linux-fsdevel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, v9fs-developer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, zippel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, dhowells@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-cifs-client@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, codalist@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, joel.becker@xxxxxxxxxx, linux-ext4@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, fuse-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, cluster-devel@xxxxxxxxxx, user-mode-linux-user@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, mikulas@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, wli@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, jffs-dev@xxxxxxxx, jfs-discussion@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, ocfs2-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx, reiserfs-devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, bfennema@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, xfs@xxxxxxxxxxx
In-reply-to: <20070807204909.GA30159@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
References: <200708061354.l76Ds3mU002255@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> <20070807204909.GA30159@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sender: xfs-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxx
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 21:49:09 +0100
Christoph Hellwig <hch@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> First thanks a lot for doing this work, it's been long needed.
> 
> Second please don't send out that many patches.  We encourage people
> to split things into small patches when the changes are logially
> separated.  Which these are not - it's a flag day change (which btw
> is fine despite the rants soe people spewed in reply to this), so it
> should be one single patch. (Or one for all mainline filesystems +
> one per fs only in -mm to make Andrew's life a little easier if you
> really care.)

Thanks. I debated about how best to split these up. A coworker
mentioned that Andrew had tossed him back a single patch that
touched several mainline filesystems and asked him to break it 
up. I took that to mean that the patches should generally be split
out, but I guess I took that too far ;-)

-- 
Jeff Layton <jlayton@xxxxxxxxxx>


<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>