From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261395AbVFBMec (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2005 08:34:32 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261396AbVFBMe3 (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2005 08:34:29 -0400 Received: from ylpvm12-ext.prodigy.net ([207.115.57.43]:18151 "EHLO ylpvm12.prodigy.net") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261395AbVFBMeY (ORCPT ); Thu, 2 Jun 2005 08:34:24 -0400 X-ORBL: [69.150.57.195] Date: Thu, 2 Jun 2005 07:32:19 -0500 From: Michael Halcrow To: James Morris Cc: Greg KH , Phillip Hellewell , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/3] eCryptfs: eCryptfs kernel module Message-ID: <20050602123219.GB8855@halcrow.us> Reply-To: Michael Halcrow References: <20050602073303.GA9373@kroah.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Jun 02, 2005 at 03:33:58AM -0400, James Morris wrote: > Break up your patch and send it in logical chunks, so it can be > reviewed easily. In discussions with some developers from JFS and CIFS, it was suggested that the best thing would be to submit one patch with the whole contents of the fs/ecryptfs directory, since it is a new filesystem with no modifications to existing code. 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? Thanks, Mike