Re: [PATCH 00/86] PATA fixes

[Bartlomiej Zolnierkiewicz]

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.