From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: David Miller Subject: Re: [PATCH] ipv6 addrconf: enable use of proc_dointvec_minmax in addrconf_sysctl Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:21:53 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <20160928.112153.1904927986517775222.davem@davemloft.net> References: <20160928.074901.901607987499248966.davem@davemloft.net> <20160928.075204.140017839812712683.davem@davemloft.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: Text/Plain; charset=iso-8859-2 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8BIT Cc: hannes@stressinduktion.org, ek@google.com, lorenzo@google.com, netdev@vger.kernel.org To: zenczykowski@gmail.com Return-path: Received: from shards.monkeyblade.net ([184.105.139.130]:36500 "EHLO shards.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S932532AbcI1PV5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 28 Sep 2016 11:21:57 -0400 In-Reply-To: Sender: netdev-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: From: Maciej Żenczykowski Date: Wed, 28 Sep 2016 22:23:10 +0900 > Anyway, enough, I give up, this isn't worth my time, and it's also not > worth your time. > I removed the dependency from the other patches and squashed them all into > 1 to make reviewing easier. Splitting things up is sometimes warranted, but you have to keep together the things that strongly need each other. And new facilities require examples of their use. They really do. I simply can't look at your patch and empty commit message and figure out why you needed to do what you were doing. Any developer should be able to look at a patch being proposed and be able to understand it standing upon on it's own. This means they shouldn't have to know what happened in this discussion thread or that one in order to evaluate and audit the patch properly.