Re: [PATCH 0/13: eCryptfs] eCryptfs Patch Set

[Michael Halcrow]

On Sun, May 14, 2006 at 01:26:55PM +1000, Nick Piggin wrote:
> Compiling at each step is better than not. But my main point is
> that it is superfluously broken into multiple patches.

This comment is from about a year ago, so it probably has fallen off
the radar:

At 2005-06-02 14:51:54, Greg K-H wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 07:32:19AM -0500, Michael Halcrow wrote:
> > What sort of
> > logical chunks would you consider to be appropriate?  Separate patches
> > for each file (inode.c, file.c, super.c, etc.), which represent sets
> > of functions for each major VFS object?
> 
> Yes.
> 
> thanks,
> 
> greg k-h
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/