On Thu, 24 Apr 2014 13:54:58 +0200 Oleg Nesterov <o...@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 04/23, Steven Rostedt wrote: > > > > Egad, this confused the heck out of me. I didn't notice the swap in > > functions and was wondering what you were doing. I didn't realize this > > is what you meant by moving the uprobe_perf_close() up. I was thinking > > you moved the call up or something, not the function itself physically > > in the file. > ... > > > > You can add by Acked-by, but next time, please make this into two > > patches. One to do the move, the other to do the change. > > OK... > > I tried to lessen the number of patches I have ;) But I agree, this simple > fix looks too complicated without preparation which only moves the code. Yeah, sometimes a simple fix just seems wrong to break into two. But if it helps in code review, it's definitely worth it. > > Let me split it then. Result is the same do I preserved the acks, this is > what I am going to add to my tree. They look good (and much easier to review). -- Steve -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
